Responding To Evolution

2005-02-16T13:45:00.000-08:00

Table of Contents

Lesson 1: Introduction To The Debate

Lesson 2: The Impact of Evolutionary Thinking On Society

Lesson 3: How Do The Bible And Science Relate?

Lesson 4: In The Beginning - God Or Particles?

Lesson 5: The Origin Of Life

Lesson 6: The Origin Of The Species: Part I

Lesson 7: The Origin Of The Species: Part II

Lesson 8: Intelligent Design

Lesson 9: Consciousness, Soul, And The Afterlife

Lesson 10: Engaging Society With A Creationist Worldview

About the Book

2005-02-16T13:17:00.000-08:00

The book is actually a syllabus – a lesson plan that became the framework for a course I teach to lay people in the church entitled, “A Christian Response to Evolution.” In the classroom I have a range of people -- from homemakers whose kids are in public school, to Ph.D. molecular biologists who are steeped in evolutionary training. Also, college students who are taking liberal arts courses built on evolutionary assumptions, as well as retired engineers who have been following the subject for 50 years. I couple this syllabus with some powerful DVDs (noted in lesson 1) and together they provide an effective formula for stimulating interaction among the diverse class, as well as building a robust Internet dialog thereafter. This syllabus can be used by readers to do the same within their local church.

My approach was to first become thoroughly familiar with the arguments on both sides of the creation/evolution debate, as well as become familiar with the differing Christian responses within the church. My source documents for the Christian worldview are (1) the facts of nature accessible to believers and non-believers alike through science and logic, and (2) God’s inerrant revelation in the Bible. My sources for evolutionary theory are the writings of the most outstanding proponents of evolution who in many cases are also the major critics of creationism.

This book is unabashedly a Christian apologetic. My approach is to take the works of the best Christian scientists, thinkers and apologists and translate them into digestible chunks that are accessible to a broad range of backgrounds within a church classroom setting. In lesson 1 I have attempted to give credit to all my sources, listing them in an extensive bibliography. I know I have missed many footnote credits even when I shamelessly have copied their work verbatim. But I have specifically noted these primary sources and encourage you to buy those books for your library.

About the Author

2005-02-16T13:15:00.000-08:00

By the time Stuart Orr finished his undergraduate degree in physics he was a hard-core agnostic. Nobody could prove God exists, and science had answered all the big questions regarding origins and life. Of course there were gaps, but they would be filled in someday – that’s how science works. A graduate degree in systems engineering and 15 years as an information technology consultant canonized his fundamental belief system. Inherit the Wind remained one of his favorite movies. Why were all these creationists clinging on to medieval arguments that had been so thoroughly discredited since the Scopes trial?

But God had other plans for Stuart. His mid-life crisis came in the form of a search for meaning and purpose in his own life. The writings of Francis Schaeffer challenged his presupposition that his scientific worldview was a “blank slate,” which could stand apart as an objective frame of reference for understanding the major issues of science. Much to his amazement he discovered that the Christian worldview actually provides a more reasonable starting point for fundamental ideas than his previous atheistic assumptions -- including those that undergird the creation/evolution debate. When Stuart became a Christian he embarked on an intellectual quest that resulted in the foundational material for this work.

In the early 1990’s, just after he completed his master’s degree coursework in Christian apologetics, the “Intelligent Design” movement began. Since most in the church were not science-savvy, Stuart began teaching classes that would translate the scientific/Christian dialog on evolution/creation into terms that the average layperson could grasp. His objective was to enable those in the pews to intelligently enter into the public debate. The course he put together resulted in the ten lessons that make up this book. In addition to his work as a teacher of apologetics and an executive in the high tech industry, Stuart also served as President and Chairman of the Board at Simon Greenleaf University (now Trinity School of Law).

2005-02-03T20:58:00.000-08:00

Lesson 10 – Engaging Society with a Creationist Worldview

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
-- Colossians 2:8

Speak the truth, but speak the truth in love.
-- Ephesians 4:15

I – UNDERSTANDING THE ENGAGEMENT

Every person starts the process of engaging an issue with pre-conceived notions about the matter. Each person explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously, decides ahead of time which self-evident truths they will accept and use to investigate and draw conclusions about a matter. This applies to all issues that we engage with our five sense (i.e., “inside the box” of naturalism as shown in the diagram in Lesson 3), as well as all philosophical and theological issues “outside the box” e.g., truth, goodness, beauty and origins. Before we even enter into a discussion, each of us has presuppositions regarding the eventual conclusion we reach --

Is it good or bad?

Is it noise or music?

Am I in love or not?

Is it God or nature?

Is it a self-evident truth?

Is it real or imagined?

Was it created or did it somehow evolve?

Trying to prove ultimate premises is an absurdity. Naturalists recoil at the thought that they have ultimate premises. They think they start with a blank slate, but in fact they cannot afford to have their premises exposed to analysis. Most people don’t know that naturalism (nature is all there is) is only an assumption and not a fact. So they attempt to convince people, especially students, that the truth of naturalism has been verified by science. Science took a wrong turn when it allowed those in the academy to become devoted to the ideology of naturalism rather than insist, as their primary duty calls them, to test all reasonable theories impartially. For creationists the process is clear. The Bible says that God is real and nature is real, and we are to, “Test all things and hold fast only to that which is true” (1 Thess 5:21).

The basis for true science[i]

Naturalism, the ideology that there is no transcendent realm beyond nature, has become the dominant self-evident truth of science since Darwin’s day. As I previously stated, naturalism is not based on a scientific conclusion. Science cannot prove that “nature is all there is” anymore that religion can prove that God exists. A correct starting point for any discussion then is to realize that either or both premises must be assumed since neither can be proven. Without assumed philosophical presuppositions further discussion would be incoherent. To the unsuspecting public, and to the many scientists who are simply unaware of the difference between science and ideology, the presupposition of naturalism is portrayed as the only objective starting point. Both theism (God exists) and naturalism (only nature exists) are faith propositions and warrant the benefit of evidence gathering and logical analysis in any scientific investigation. The most scientific conclusion should be the one which has the best evidentiary support.

Originally science was conceived as the search for truth, wherever the path may lead. But naturalism artificially restricts scientific inquiry to only those paths which can be observed and measured. That means inquiry is artificially restricted to “objects” or “things” that can be inspected, experimented on, and ultimately controlled. Think about that for a moment. Think about truth, goodness and beauty. How about feelings; our spiritual dimension; our belief about God; our soul? These are not things that can be measured objectively with the 5 senses alone. Neither are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control. These are all part of the human experience that separates us from things and animals. But these “things of real life” are not considered objectively real by the academy. The implicit naturalistic assumption is that someday these subjective phenomena will be reduced to chemistry and physics or to an equation and they will become objective. In this kind of system, one could never conclude that creation is a valid theory because the source of it (God) is eliminated from consideration before we even begin the inquiry.

C.S. Lewis warned that the rise of naturalism would lead to what he called “the abolition of man,” for it denies the reality of those things that are central to our humanity, e.g., our sense of right and wrong; of purpose; of beauty; of God. And, if we deny the things that make us truly human, then we will create a culture that is, by definition, inhuman, If we treat morality as totally subjective, then the culture will be stripped of all objective morality. If we deny the reality of human virtues that make us superior to the beasts, then those virtues whither away and reduce us to the level of beasts. Thus while science has created technological advances, it ends up destroying the very things that make life worth living. We gain control over the natural world at the cost of our own souls. “For men of old,” wrote Lewis, “the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline and virtue.” The purpose of life was defined in terms of the growth of the soul, and there was an abiding moral standard to which to conform. But for the contemporary, technological mindset, “the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men.” This mindset acknowledges no abiding standards, so there is nothing to check the human desire for control and domination. Watch naturalistic scientists being interviewed on TV and you quickly realize that many have been stripped of their ability to evaluate the ethical consequences of their own work. Consider the current public discussion regarding stem-cell research and cloning. The debate is mostly about the technical aspects (What can be done?), seldom on the ethical implications (What should be done?). The Christian must play a key role in communicating with our friends, family and neighbors, and through the media about what it means to be human – to be created in the image of God and its profound moral implications. Ethical understanding has not kept pace with the brilliance of technological discovery and as a result, science and technology blunder on without any clear moral guidance. Christians are God’s agents to provide that guidance – especially Christians who are called into the field of science.

Yet despite the ominous weaknesses of naturalism, it is no easy task to dislodge it from its position of intellectual dominance. It has invested naturalistic scientists with enormous power. If science is the only source of knowledge, then their discipline trumps all others and they alone speak with authority to the culture. If Christians are to stand against the attacks on our faith made in the name of science, the first target needs not to be evolution but its underlying philosophical assumption – naturalism.

Naturalism is a self-contradicting assumption and is basically incoherent. If all human activity is reduced to naturalistic mechanisms, then so are the scientists who are expounding this philosophy. They would not be capable of transcending the natural world with an ability of unbiased rational thought, free deliberation, and the capability to formulate theory or recognize objective truth. The proponents of naturalism are claiming that they alone are the single glaring exception to their own assumption. This is blatant self-contradiction. Also, since naturalists assume that everything that exists is capable of being explained in terms of natural forces, then this very idea must be explainable in terms of natural forces, e.g. by brain chemistry. But if it is explained by brain chemistry alone, then it can be neither true nor false; neither rational nor irrational. How would one ever distinguish between a hallucination and reality if it is just a matter of brain chemistry? How would we ever know that the “idea” of naturalism was rational or illusionary? C.S. Lewis wrote, “In order to think, we must claim for our reasoning a validity which is not credible if our own thought is merely a function of our brain and our brain is a byproduct of irrational physical processes.” Our task as Christians is to expose the flaws in naturalism which has invested science with this ultimate intellectual authority. We must do it not because we are against science, but because it is antithetical to the original conception of science which is to seek truth wherever the path may lead.

II – UNDERSTANDING THE EVOLUTIONIST’S “RULES OF ENGAGEMENT”

Every civilization has its own creation myth. In our time and culture, evolution continues to be the official government-sponsored creation story. The prestigious National Academy of Science states it this way, “Much as Darwin proposed, natural selection is the process that gives direction to evolution [and] .... accounts for the apparent design of organisms ... Adaptations, whether expressed as simple metabolic reactions or as a complicated organ like the human eye, are considered by the overwhelming majority of biologists to be the result of natural selection.”[ii] To the scientific community evolution is not a theory, it is fact; macroevolution is a proven extrapolation of microevolution (adaptation) and is held beyond reproach, even though much evidence disconfirms it. Darwinian theory gave a scientific basis for man to brake away from a search for God and in doing so has set himself adrift in a cosmos without a purpose or goal. No other intellectual revolution in modern times has so profoundly affected the way man views himself and his place in the universe. Douglas Futuyma, writes in one of the most widely used evolutionary college textbooks, “Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms, but this seems to be the message of evolution.” If the evolutionary scientists are right, believers in God are deluded. But, on the other hand, if evolution is not true then it is the evolutionary naturalists who are deluded.

Evolutionism (the expansion of naturalism into all aspects of human understanding) has wrongly claimed ground once off-limits to science, e.g., seeking to explain moral behavior, human relationships, cultural customs, and even religion as products of natural selection. This destructive impact of the Darwinian naturalistic worldview has become so commonplace it hardly registers as news anymore. The only way to stand against such a comprehensive naturalistic worldview is to articulate a Christian worldview that is equally comprehensive and consistent. Critics dismiss Christianity as irrational, yet it alone provides a consistent, unified worldview that holds true both in the natural realm and in the moral, spiritual realm. The biblical doctrine of man being made in the image of God gives a solid basis for human dignity and moral freedom that is compatible with the compelling witness of human experience. Unlike with the evolutionary psychologies, Christians can live consistently on the basis of their worldview because it alone fits the real world.

As Christian parents we must give our children a level of confidence that the Christian worldview is superior to the secular one they will encounter in school. Otherwise they may not survive the cognitive warfare they face in the world today. We must prepare our young people before they leave for college by teaching them that Christianity is not just religious truth, but the truth about all reality.

Biological evolution is just assumed to be true

In spite of the disconfirming evidence, all biological phenomena are interpreted in Darwinian terms. Evolution is assumed to be true and every professional scientist is subject throughout his or her working life to its continued affirmation. Sir Julian Huxley, the grandfather of the modern new-Darwinian movement wrote, “The first point I want to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory but a fact.... Darwinianism has come of age so to speak. We are no longer having to bother about establishing the fact of evolution.” Richard Dawkins, the leading Darwinian evangelist today wrote, “The theory (of evolution) is about as much in doubt as the fact that the earth goes around the sun.” In his famous book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) has written: “If you doubt the power of natural selection I urge you, to save your soul, read Dawkins’ book” (bolding mine). Stephen Jay Gould stated, “Before Darwin we thought that a benevolent God had created us.” Jacques Monod writes, “Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.” Such claims are statements of faith not science. Once a community of faith elevates a theory to the status of a self-evident truth its defense becomes irrelevant and its proponents no longer think it is necessary to establish the theory’s validity by reference to empirical fact. (This is often true of religion as well.) When that happens, however, we leave the realm of science and enter the realm of ideology. Only a minority of evolutionists will admit that they are dealing with more than science alone. Maybe they are unaware of the difference between science and ideology. One of our jobs as Christians is to be able to point out the uncritical philosophical “step of faith” taken by the evolutionist. Therein lays the opportunity: insist that one examine all the evidence (dis-confirming as well as confirming) before making a philosophical or ideological assumption. After all, isn’t that what we want the scientific method to be? Christians can argue that proper methodology be employed to discover the logic of the facts; and evidence should not be evaluated by a methodology that just assumes the point in question.[iii]

Macroevolution (as a fact) has been shown to be objectively untenable under unbiased investigation. Evolution continues to succeed solely by the promotional effort of its community of believers. Its success is entirely man-made and not based on the preponderance of the evidence, but rather on philosophical speculation. The legacy of the evolution myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory was all but proven a hundred years ago and that subsequent research in biology, paleontology, zoology, genetics, molecular biology, etc. has provided ever-increasing evidence for it. As we have shown in this course, nothing could be further from the truth. The supporting evidence was so patchy in Darwin’s time that he himself had increasing doubts about macroevolution. The only aspect of his theory that has received empirical confirmation is “adaptation” (microevolution). Extrapolation of adaptation (Darwin’s Special Theory) to macroevolution (Darwin’s General Theory that all life on earth evolved by successive gradual fortuitous mutations) is a highly speculative hypothesis without any direct factual support, and is far from the self-evident axiom that supporters want us to believe.

The wall of separation between science and religion

Scientists are in the business of explaining the physical world. If a hypothesis involves the “transcendent” the modern mind, particularly scientists, are loath to engage it. There is great anxiety that if theism were allowed to be given scientific consideration (even just a “toe in the door”), there would be no stopping religious speculation in science. Myth and fantasy would eventually come flooding in to destroy the scientific enterprise altogether. Hence, an impenetrable wall of separation is put up by the scientific community to prevent any supernatural hypothesis from being considered. This fear is unfounded because the scientific method is self-correcting. As long as logic prevails, only theories with strong evidentiary support (no matter what the source – even religious) will become and remain scientifically viable. We talk as if we are an open-minded society, and teach our children that they must think for themselves. Yet in our institutions of learning (where academic freedom supposedly reigns) we manipulate the teaching process to cultivate people to think just as we want them to think. Evolutionists are currently in charge of the secular institutions, hence the evolutionary paradigm is used to indoctrinate, not teach people to think for themselves.

Improper extrapolation

There is obviously an enormous difference between the evolution in the color of a moth’s wing and the evolutionary development of a human mind. Microevolutionary differences between Hawaiian fruit flies and Galapagos finches are utterly trivial compared to the alleged macroevolutionary differences between a rat and a dog, or an eel and a butterfly! Extrapolation of models of most natural phenomena is usually only valid within limits, and evolutionary biology is no different. Consider, for example:

To predict of the seasonal effects of weather (macro models) from models of pressure systems (micro models), one needs to take into account completely new factors, i.e., the tilt of the earth’s axis, the revolution of the earth around the sun, etc.

To predict the flight of a golf ball one needs to take into account the spin effect on the dimple pattern (micro model). Without the lift generated by the spin the golf ball would travel less than half the distance predicted by a macro model without the spin effect.

When complex systems undergo only gradual change they may be able to be modeled by simple equations. But when the variables reach certain limits a “jump” to a new type of explanation may be required. For example, the flow of a stream of water may be smooth (laminar), until it reaches a boundary that drastically changes the flow (turbulence). There is a radical change of the fluid dynamics at the boundary layer, as well as the physics and mathematics required to explain it.

Clearly, living beings are complex systems. Evolutionary extrapolation from the micro level to the macro level does not necessarily hold. There seems to be a distinct barrier beyond which further change is impossible. Therefore it must be explained by the introduction of new parameters or replaced by another theory. Dogs can be cross-bred only so far. They can’t be changed into their human masters. The history of science is replete with theories that were once thought to be generally valid over an entire domain, but which eventually proved valid only in a restricted range.[iv] Macroevolution is such a hypothesis. It cannot be legitimately formed by extrapolation of microevolution. The macroevolution paradigm survives for reasons other than scientific.

Suggested reasons why Darwinian evolution has become dogma

The rebellion against the tradition of the Church that began in the Enlightenment intensified in the 19th century. Science was answering more and more questions about the universe, and the necessity of a “God of the gaps”[v] explanation was becoming less and less needed to explain the mysteries of nature. Darwin was the first to attempt to bring the study of biological life into the sphere of modern science. Darwinian evolution advanced a very attractive hypothesis that there was no necessity for a “God of the gaps” to explain the origin of species. Science could explain it all. This was at a time when people were looking for an escape from religious dogma. Theistic science had, by its very nature, discontinuities (gaps) in which God worked in “miraculous” ways. This was very disconcerting to scientists who wanted to discover continuous laws of nature that make appeals to God unnecessary.[vi]

Nineteenth century optimism, fueled by Hegelian[vii] optimism, gave rise to an underlying philosophy in all fields of study. Unbounded progress through Hegelian synthesis was possible. Evolution was and continues to be the best naturalistic explanation for the origin and progression of life. Since “we don’t know” is not an attractive conclusion in the scientific community, evolution is seen as the best naturalistic explanation for the origin of the species, even if confirming evidence does not exist. Biological science has since promoted evolution from a theory to a paradigm, and it will reign until a better naturalistic explanation comes along.

The flaw in today’s evolutionary methodology is that only naturalistic hypotheses are allowed to be considered. Naturalistic methodology disavows intelligent design, for example, from even proposing theories about the physical universe. There is no scientific basis for this prohibition. Any legitimate scientific theory should be allowed consideration. The evidence and the logic of the facts will then sort out whether a hypothesis is worthy of further consideration. That is the classical scientific method. The evolutionary version of the scientific method, however, gets away with unspoken and biased philosophical assumptions.

God-of-the-gaps

Science is concerned that the hypothesis “God did it” would be used to explain-away every “gap” in empirical understanding instead of pushing further and harder for a natural explanation. They worry that cultivating a “God-of-the-gaps” mentality would degenerate the scientific process and emasculate science. An example is cited when Sir Isaac Newton appealed to the “God-of-the-gaps” to account for certain anomalies in the motion of the heavenly bodies. A few years later Laplace scientifically accounted for those anomalies by natural law. We don’t seem to realize, however, that naturalistic scientists also postulate “gap explanations” -- a sort of “science-of-the-gaps.” For example, Albert Einstein postulated an unknown fifth force of physics to explain an apparent anomaly in his General Theory of Relativity. At that time he did not want to believe that a creation event occurred, i.e., the big bang as predicted by his General Theory. He was afraid that would give strong evidence (if not proof) that God exists. Later, however, he did come to accept the creation event calling his fifth force theory “the greatest mistake of his career.”[viii] Einstein later became a strong theist, although not a believer in a personal God, after reflecting on the scientific and mathematical evidence. That did not diminish his capabilities as a scientist. The scientific enterprise is self-correcting. As long as one is not fearful of new or even “strange” ideas, and does not become arbitrary and dogmatic about what is “allowed” to be postulated, the enterprise works remarkably well.

Miracles are repugnant to the modern mind

Creationism introduces discontinuities into science, i.e., unaccountable breaks in the chain of causation. Scientists like to have a vision of nature as a seamless garment of causal connections. Miracles are temporary suspensions of natural law and obvious discontinuities in the chain of causation. But modern science has its own “miracles” they just don’t call it that. The Big Bang is science’s creation event when everything in the universe that “is, ever was, and will be” came into being -- out of nothing, the greatest miracle of all time! That’s a major discontinuity in the chain of causation. Quantum physics has replaced Newtonian mechanics for describing the movement of sub-atomic particles. It predicts that particles “jump” from one location to another without ever being in between. That certainly is a discontinuity. Obviously, these theories have not undermined a scientific understanding of the universe – it has only amplified the mystery of it. When the Big Bang was first proposed many scientists were concerned that the postulation of a creation event would destroy the scientific enterprise since it would give strong support for a Creator God to the detriment of scientific explanation. That has not happened. Science continues to generate non-theistic theories without any difficulty. My point is that theistic options (as long as they can be postulated and investigated in scientific terms) should be part of the enterprise, especially at points of disjunction like creation events where science resorts to its own “miracle” or “science-of-the-gaps” explanation.

Underlying metaphysical assumptions

Scientists are very concerned about taking metaphysical, i.e., “beyond physics” positions. Metaphysics makes claims about reality which are “prior to” and “more fundamental than” scientific or common sense observations. In the case of creation, one is forced to make a metaphysical commitment when the question being considered is, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” One has arrived at the limits of the physical (natural) world and is pressed to make a metaphysical assumption either consciously or subconsciously; admittedly or implicitly. Once a metaphysical position is adopted it shapes, rather than is shaped by, those observations. That is, metaphysical commitments have priority and if challenged the observations yield to that position rather than the reverse. The scientist may fail to understand that this is true for everyone. Nobody stands apart from the universe in a neutral position of judgment. Everyone has a set of presuppositions and prior assumptions that color his or her evaluation of the evidence. Thomas Kuhn in his 1970 groundbreaking work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argues that only through “paradigm shifts” does science make any real advances. Our set of prior assumptions determines, to a great extent, the theories (paradigms) that we come up with. Only as a person or community is open to testing their fundamental assumptions can they ever hope to advance the understanding of nature.

Are scientists really unbiased?

Many believe that scientists evaluate all things from an unbiased point of view without any metaphysical lens at all. That is simply not true. As David Bohm, legendary professor of Physics at the University of London admitted back in the 1960’s:[ix]

It seems clear that everybody has got some kind of metaphysics, even if he thinks he hasn’t got any. Indeed, the practical “hard-headed” individual who “only goes by what he sees”, generally has a very dangerous kind of metaphysics; i.e., the kind of which he is unaware.... Such metaphysics is dangerous because, in it, assumptions and inferences are being mistaken for directly observed facts, with the result that they are effectively riveted in an almost unchangeable way into the structure of thought.... One of the best ways of a person becoming aware of his own tacit metaphysical assumptions is to be confronted by several other kinds. His first reaction is often of violent disturbance, as views that are very dear are questioned or thrown to the ground. Nevertheless, if he will stay with it, rather than escape into anger and unjustified rejection of contrary ideas, he will discover that this disturbance is very beneficial. For now he becomes aware of the assumptive character of a great many previous unquestioned features of his own thinking.

Some evolutionists are starting to acknowledge their bias

Harvard genetics professor and atheistic scientist Richard Lewontin explained his bias quite candidly in The New York Review of Books:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment; a commitment to materialism [naturalism]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (bolding and brackets mine)

The evolutionary mindset in academia[x]

In 1981 the U.S. National Academy of Science pronounced that religion and science are separate mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief. But why should we accept these rules of the Academy – the starting assumption that God has never acted in ways accessible to scientific investigation? Why not challenge the rules and insist that science follow the data wherever it leads?

We must bring theology back into the sphere of public objective knowledge and not just be satisfied with it residing in “distinctively Christian” universities. In secular academic circles “distinctively Christian” means “distinctively inferior.”[xi] Many intellectuals are critical of Christian institutions which require faculty to affirm adherence to the fundamental doctrines of the Church. They say it is inconsistent with academic freedom. Also, they say that religion should be confined to the private sphere where its illusory beliefs are acceptable if they “work for you.” Also, they assume that taking a strong position for God is associated with intolerance, even when we promote diversity and the rights of minorities. In the liberal academy the intellectually elite set the rules that naturalism pronounce what is real, true, objective and rational (facts), while religion is relegated to the realm of subjective opinion and non-rational experience.

Education in all departments of the secular universities assumes the following credo but never spells it out:

In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics. And the particles somehow through chance and time became complex living stuff. And the stuff imagined God, but then discovered evolution.

Either God created us, or we created God – that is, we created the idea of God out of some emotional or personal need. If man created God then he has the power to dispense with his own creation – and in today’s secular university he has.

Conclusion

I have attempted to show that the problems of the neo-Darwinian synthesis are utterly intractable not only for the “mutation-natural selection” mechanism, but for any “undirected natural process,” i.e., one without-intelligent design. These problems for the evolutionist include: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multi-cellular life, the origin of sexuality, the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological explosion that occurred during the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems, the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines, among many others. If indeed neo-Darwinian evolution is a myth, why then is it held so tenaciously? As I have shown, it is because we are dealing with something more than a straight forward determination of scientific fact. We are dealing with metaphysics and a worldview that is in direct competition with the Christian worldview. The naturalistic metaphysic is so pervasive and powerful that it not only rules out alternative views, but even worse -- it does not permit itself to be critiqued. Fallibility and tentativeness, which are supposed to be part of the scientific methodology, find no place in the metaphysic that undergirds Darwinism. It’s no wonder that evolutionism and creationism shun one another.

III – UNDERSTANDING THE CHRISTIAN’S “RULES OF ENGAGEMENT”

The table below gives a side-by-side comparison of worldview differences between the naturalist’s neo-Darwinian synthesis and the creationist’s understanding of biblical revelation.

	Neo-Darwinian Synthesis	Biblical Revelation
Presuppositions [Lesson 1, 10]	Nature is all there is, ever was, and every will be. All aspects of reality are subject to evolution. There is no plan or purpose. God is not relevant to the discussion.	God exists and created nature and everything that exists in it in accordance with His plan and purpose. All aspects of reality are subject to Him.[Ps 24:1; Ps 14:1; Job 42:2]
Initial Cause of the Universe [Lesson 4]	Spontaneous generation of all of nature -- matter, energy, space and time out of nothing, or by an unknown cause.	God created all nature and its information content out of nothing (ex nihilo). [Gen 1-2; Heb 11:3; Ps 33:6]
Intelligent Design [Lesson 7, 8]	None – random process/chance mutation and natural selection gives the appearance of having been designed -- (Cosmological evolution).	God created all things in accordance with His divine design, will and purpose.[Jn 1:1-4; Ps 19:1-4; Prov 3:19]
Origin of Life [Lesson 5]	Spontaneous and evolutionary generation of life from non-life (Chemical evolution).	God created all life – plant and animal.[Gen 1:11, 20-22; Rev 4:11]
Origin of the Species [Lesson 6, 7]	Biological evolution (mutation and natural selection) accounts for the development of all the species.	God specially intervened to create each “kind.”[Rms 1:20-25; Ps 104:24,25]
Limits of Evolution [Lesson 6]	None. The fact of adaptation (microevolution) can be extrapolated to macroevolution which produces all the new body plans and parts.	Adaptation is a fact, but bounded. There are divinely ordained limits of variation within each created “kind” of living being. Macro-evolution cannot be extrapolated.[Gen 1:11-12; 21-25; 2:19; 6:20]
Humankind [Lesson 6]	Man is an evolved animal and is ultimately no different than a rat or a bacterium.	Man is the crown of God’s special creation, made in His image and uniquely distinct from all other creatures.[Gen 1:27;Ps 139:13-16; Is 44:24]
Consciousness and Soul [Lesson 9]	Consciousness evolves out of matter. Conscious and soul experiences are physical not supernatural phenomena, and cease to exist when we die. Our “mind” is nothing more than our physical brain.	Our soul is our true self and our connection to God. The soul is our ego (the self) and it contains our consciousness and animates our body through the mind. The brain dies with the body, but our mind and soul live on forever. [Mt 10:28; 2 Cor 5:8; Gal 5:17]
Social Evolution [Lesson 2]	Philosophical absolutes such as truth, goodness and beauty are non-existent. Man invents his own fundamental principles in accordance with his needs. There is no “higher law” for us to discover.	God is the Sovereign over His creation and has established absolutes and limits. Man discovers these fundamental principles and limits by studying God’s Word and nature.[Ps 19:7; 119:42; Rms 2:15]
Truth [Lesson 3]	There is no absolute truth. All values are relative. Most all opinions are equally valid but not necessarily equally beneficial.	God’s general revelation in nature and special revelation through the Bible are absolute truth. His truth is perfect and authoritative. [Ps 119:160; Jn 17:17; Rms 3:4]
Good and Evil [Lesson 3]	Good and evil are merely social conventions. Ethics (the grounds for morality) is a matter of opinion (relative). Human behavior has been programmed in our genes by natural selection.	There is absolute “good and evil,” “right and wrong.” Morality has been revealed by the Creator and we are to cling to good and abhor evil. We are responsible for our actions before a holy God.[Gen 1:31; Rms 12:9; Is 5:20-21]
Beauty [Lesson 3]	Beauty is the eyes of the beholder. All expressions of creativity are equally valid.	God is the source of absolute beauty. Reflecting the mind of God in one’s expression of creativity is the highest ideal.[Ps 96:5,6; Ps 90:17; Ps 111:2-4]
Future of Humankind [Lesson 9]	Endless progression of the human race to an unknown destiny of higher capability. There is no afterlife.	Divinely ordained destination of the human race to a final judgment of every person and an eternal life of blessing or curse in the afterlife.[Acts 17:30; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1]

What is the apologetic challenge for the Christian?

Many skeptics just don’t want there to be “Anything” beyond nature. If God exists, logically one might have to be accountable to Him. One might have to be concerned that the Sovereign is a Personal Being who sets the rules (Law in an absolute sense) and is active in administering justice, including a final judgment. Bertrand Russell admitted that this was one of his major problems with Christianity. He wanted to set his own moral standards without any interference from God. As Dostoyevsky reminded us, however, “Without God, anything is permissible.” The calling for the Christian is to witness to the fact that God is a loving God who has created us for a purpose and works all things together for the good to those who love Him. That the boundaries that He establishes are for our own good and protection; and that abundant life exists eternally with the Creator.

We should be about promoting the re-establishment of theistic science where both nature is real and God is real. Darwin said in the Origin of the Species, “A fair result can only be obtained by examining both sides of [a] question.” Point this out to your evolutionist friends. Engage them to view the data from both paradigms. The culture war between theism and naturalism has been characterized as a conflict between science and religion, when in reality it is a conflict between two metaphysical interpretations of the nature of reality and the significance of human life. As I have previously shown, prior philosophical commitment can easily override any theory (creationist or evolutionist) that flows naturally from the data. Therefore, educating both sides to the worldview differences and assumptions is a primary mission of the apologist. Unless some progress is made in recognizing the role metaphysical thinking plays in science, the creation and evolution debate will simply rage on much as it has in the past 150 years with people on both sides failing to hear or understand the other.

Our most important apologetic task is to clearly articulate the gospel of Jesus Christ and pray that the Holy Spirit will lift the blinders from the eyes of the unbelieving. Remember, this is God’s work. Our job is to be informed, humble and open-minded vessels through which He can accomplish His purposes.

Conflicting creationist’s positions within the Church

The Bible clearly teaches that God created nature (the heavens and the earth) and that nature reveals His glory to all mankind -- saved and unsaved (Psalm 19, Romans 1 and 2). Since nature is a revelation of God (general), both nature and the Bible (special) are inerrant revelations. Reconciling the two, however, can be a challenging matter of interpretation. When any one group of Christians claim they have the only correct biblical interpretation of nature and it supersedes whatever nature reveals through direct observation, they are setting themselves up for cultural and theological conflict. We need to remember the lesson of Galileo when he faced-down those in the Church who claimed his account of a heliocentric universe could not be true. The Church said that the Bible clearly taught that the sun moved around the earth (in passages such as Joshua 10:13 and Ecclesiastes 1:5). However, it was the Church’s interpretation of Scripture that proved in error, not Galileo’s interpretation of nature.

Some of the entrenchment by the evolutionary establishment which maintains an “old earth” position is brought on by intransigent “young earth” creationists. The “age of the cosmos debate” among Christians is at most a minor doctrinal point and is certainly not a criterion for salvation. Young-earth creationism imposes an interpretation on the age of nature, i.e., the earth is only thousands of years old. This is untenable to most all practicing astronomers, even Christian ones. To be dogmatic on this issue is grounds for the scientific community to shun creationism altogether and the Bible which “allegedly” teaches it.

There are intransigent “old-earth” creationists as well. They are 100% percent certain that astrophysics reveals the age of the universe to be 10-20 billion years old and they do not allow even the possibility that God might have created the universe with the “appearance of age.” No one was around to confirm what really happened at the creation event; and we can’t reproduce the original event in a laboratory. Therefore, we need to give each other some slack on this issue.

Theistic evolutionists (I prefer to call them “theistic creationists” since most believe in the Creator God of the Bible and His special work in creation), are sometimes treated by fellow Christians like collaborators with the Nazis during World War II. Personally I don’t see how one reconciles the “impersonal, undirected and chance” aspects of evolutionary theory with God’s “purposeful, directed and designed” process of creation, but many do while successfully maintaining an inerrancy position regarding Scripture.

We must remember that our argument is not with fellow followers of Jesus Christ and the Bible, although it is perfectly healthy to challenge and sharpen one another. Our disagreement is with the anti-Christian wing of the Darwinian establishment – people who believe as Richard Dawkins does that, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane – or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that.”

Evangelicals – be aware (and beware) of your biases

Evangelical scholar Mark Noll critiques a common bias among some groups of evangelicals. In The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, he writes:

In their enthusiasm for reading the world in light of Scripture, evangelicals forget the proposition that the Western world’s early modern scientists had so successfully taken to heart as a product of their own deep Christian convictions – to understand something, one must look at that something. The result is a twofold tragedy. First, millions of evangelicals think they are defending the Bible by defending creation science [young-earth creationism], but in reality they are giving ultimate authority to the merely temporal, situated, and contextualized interpretations of the Bible that arose from the mania for science of the early nineteenth century. Second, with that predisposition, evangelicals lost the ability to look at nature as it was and so lost out on the opportunity to understand more about nature as it is. By holding on so determinedly to our beliefs concerning how we concluded God had made nature, we evangelicals forfeited the opportunity to glorify God for the way he had made nature. In a mirror reaction to the zealous secularists of the twentieth century, evangelicals have gone back to thinking that we must shut up one of God’s books [the “book of nature”] if we want to read the other one.” (brackets mine)

IV – ENGAGING SOCIETY WITH A CREATIONIST’S WORLDVIEW

There has been an on-going battle between evolution and religion ever since the Huxley versus Wilberforce confrontation of 1860. The Scopes (monkey) trial of 1925 solidified the modern battle lines, but science and religion should not be enemies. There was a time when both flourished and cooperated to the mutual benefit of each other and the culture. There is no reason why that can’t be true today as well. Christians and evolutionists engaged in the culture war are talking past one another. As I have shown, there are presuppositions and biases on both sides and by understanding that and wanting to do something about it there is hope of improving the communications.

The Bible instructs us that to the extent is depends on us, be at peace with all men and women (Rms 12:18); contend for truth (Jude3) but when you speak it, do so in love (Eph 4:15). And don’t be quarrelsome, but with gentleness and respect teach and correct those who are in opposition (1 Pet 3:15; 2 Tim 2:24-25). Now that we have been educated on the topic, and understand the mindset of those who oppose us, how do we go about this engagement? Here are some suggested ways.

Pray

Local School Boards who have taken up the fight to teach the controversy

Encourage those in the creationist’s movements. Pray for their preparation, intellectual honesty, wisdom and courage to make their views known, and be Godly witnesses for Jesus Christ

Pray for gentleness and respect among the various Christian groups with differing views

Intelligent design movement

ICR – Biblical creationism

Hugh Ross – progressive creationism

Theistic evolution

Historical creationism – an emerging textural interpretation of the Bible.[xii]

Learn

Study Genesis 1 & 2 and the sections of the Bible dealing with the creation account

Understand why the issue of creation is so fundamental to our faith

Study the notes given out in this class

Buy and read some of the recommend books and DVDs in the bibliography (Lesson 1)

Review the recommended websites

Keep up-to-date. Internet is a great way. Go to http://www.news.google.com/, and search on “evolution” and “intelligent design.” Create a Google alert and receive daily, weekly, or monthly notification of all news items in this category.

Visit http://www.gtbe.org/ (Gateways to Better Education), http://www.family.org/ (Focus on the Family), and http://www.breakpoint.org/ (Breakpoint with Charles Colson) for insight regarding the impact on you family

With these notes, lead a class on this topic in a small group study format

Encourage the pastors in your church, especially in Jr. High, High School and College to make this subject a priority. Give a balanced perspective considering the various Christian positions.

Attend special seminars on the topic

Host a special seminar at the church. Use your own teachers or outside speakers

Study the Santorum Amendment to the White House Education Bill of 2001, passed by the U.S. Senate 91-8 and signed by President Bush. It is the best teaching guide for School Districts to follow in preparing students to understand the controversy and to distinguish verifiable scientific theories. It will help you be an informed participant in public discussions regarding the subject. The Santorum Amendment states:

Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much controversy and should prepare students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

Teach and Engage

Talk to you children. Know what they are learning. Supplement their education with these notes. Review textbooks such as Of Pandas and People developed by “intelligent design” scientists

Teach your children how to respectively ask tough questions in the classroom which will reveal the evolutionary bias. See Chuck Colson’s Ten Questions about Origins at the end of this section.

Engage your family, friends and neighbors in discussions about the controversy going on in the School Districts across America

Help your local School Board by supporting efforts to teach the controversy

Use the information in these notes to enhance your witnessing and defense of the faith

Use this information to engage the skeptics you have encountered and lead them to the Lord

Write letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, rebuttals to newspapers, magazine articles, e.g. National Geographic, and TV programs, e.g., PBS’ Evolution.

Write to museum boards e.g., Smithsonian Institute, and the National Academy of Sciences

Rebut the lobbying organizations that fight teaching the controversy in the public schools, e.g. National Center for Science Education, http://www.ncse.org/ and the ACLU, http://www.aclu.org/.

Participate in blog sites on the topic

Support

Your local church and pastor in making this topic relevant to the entire Body

Run for School Board or other local office to have impact in your community

Support the legal organizations that are on the front line opposing the ACLU and NCSE, e.g., the Alliance Defense Fund, http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/, the American Center for Law and Justice, http://www.aclj.org/, and the Christian Legal Society, http://www.clsnet.org/.

Support the research organizations that are supporting this effort (see the websites listed in Lesson 1).

Chuck Colson’s Ten Questions about Origins[xiii]

What fossil record is there of any transitional fossils indicating that one order evolved into another order?

Is there any evidence of an order that was at one time a different order? I recognize that there is adaptation within an order, different breeds of dogs for example, but I don't know of any case where there is any evidence of a dog becoming a horse.

What scientific evidence is there to support a natural origin of life? (The evolutionist may point to the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953, much celebrated at the time. They initially said they had reproduced the precise conditions under which in the primordial soup life could have arisen. But after experts looked at it, it turned out that there was frequent human intervention and had the process been left to itself, it could not have worked. In short, there is no evidence.)

How does one support the conclusion of the American Society of Biological Teachers that evolution is “unsupervised, impersonal and random?” What scientific (as opposed to philosophical) basis is there for this statement?

(A follow-up question for 4) Is this not inconsistent with discoveries about DNA, which indicate that there is a mathematical formula determining the complexity of human beings? Do mathematical formulas have naturalistic origins?

How do we reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with the universe as we know it? If the universe is indeed winding down, does that not presuppose that sometime and by some means it was being wound up? By what means?

What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe’s findings (Darwin’s Black Box) about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise the cell doesn't work. Thus evolution of one part at a time is not reasonable.

What caused the Big Bang?

What did Einstein mean when he said, “God does not play dice with the cosmos?” If he considered evidence of intelligence in the universe, why shouldn’t we?

What evidence is there for genetic mutations that increase the biologically useful information of the genome? Or to put it another way: What evidence is there for genetic mutations facilitating macroevolutionary change?

When you ask these questions, beware. Aggressive evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you, dismiss the questions, laugh at them, claim that they’re ridiculous, or say that you’re basing it on your faith. Stand your ground. This is not based on your faith. These are common sense inquiries that anybody in an academically free environment ought to pursue. They are not unreasonable questions, even though that is what your adversary will say. Or he will tell you that you really don’t understand or that you have to be more into science to grasp this, or it’s too complex a concept to explain. If it’s too complex to explain, how could anyone teach it?

The one you must never let evolutionists run away from is Einstein. Naturalists in the evolutionist lobby do not allow anybody to talk about intelligent design because they say it comes from faith. It doesn’t. There is a respectable school of science and Einstein raised these questions. So why should they be stricken out of inquiry? If you can get a naturalist to acknowledge that they can be discussed, he’s finished, which is why he’ll fight so hard to reject the questions. He’s finished because there is much more scientific evidence for design than there is for natural origin.

Everything we say about natural origin is speculation, just as the God hypothesis that we believe in is speculation because nobody was there at the creation. But we can look at the character of the universe and draw certain conclusions. Because of a prior philosophical commitment to naturalism this is precisely what the naturalist refuses to do.

Conclusion

Today’s debate is foiled before it even begins because naturalists claim that “creationism” and “intelligent design” are not scientifically acceptable hypotheses. But science is about evidence gathering, making inferences and drawing conclusions to best explain the available information. The naturalist has a metaphysic that filters the data before a conclusion can be reached -- arbitrarily deciding beforehand what data is "scientifically acceptable" to him or her. I have shown that this is a “scientifically unacceptable” presupposition. Suppose we were playing Scrabble and I removed all the vowels beforehand because a,e,i,o,u, y are "unacceptable letters." Then I declared that Scrabble is not a real game because I can't spell any English words. You probably would say, "Wait a minute -- you're not allowing me to bring to the table all the pieces that makes Scrabble a real game." The naturalist has rigged his argument the same way. The "Designer-hypothesis" is not allowed on the table from the start. After some play he reaches the conclusion that the Designer doesn't exist because there no evidence that the Designer exists. The naturalist can't scientifically prove that the Designer does not exist, so he has no right to proclaim a priori that my hypothesis is "scientifically unacceptable." It is a non sequitur.

Einstein empirically and mathematically explored the universe and concluded that a “God of order” must exist, and "does not play dice with the world," i.e., God is an intelligent agent. Recently atheistic philosopher Anthony Flew conceded the same point of intelligent agency on the basis of the scientific evidence. Both obviously started with intelligent agency as a hypothesis that was "scientifically acceptable." The naturalist has decided, however, beforehand that evidence for a lawgiver or a designer can't be brought to the table. Then, by his rules, God doesn't exist. I agree with that conclusion -- I can't make English words without vowels.

Why not put the vowels back in the bag and play real Scrabble. There's nothing to be afraid of with the scientific method -- it is self-correcting and filters out erroneous presuppositions and illogical conclusions. The scientific method is not afraid of religion or philosophy -- it doesn't care from where or who a hypothesis came -- a Muslim, an atheist or a Christian. The scientific method simply says, place your bet on whatever hypothesis you want -- but then you must go test it. You must collect all the data you can and use it to verify or falsify your premise. You must use logic to conclude which hypothesis makes the most sense. Since neither the naturalist nor creationist can prove their conclusion empirically, one must draw their conclusion by making the best inference that explains the available information. This should be a search for truth, wherever the evidence may lead.

The toughest intellectual barrier to the Christian faith is not the question of whether God created the world. One intuitively knows that the universe is orderly and suspects it must be the result of an intelligence of such superiority that it overshadows all human intelligence. It can’t be merely random matter bumping around endlessly in space and by chance creating all things. What stymies people is something much deeper than the doctrine of creation: it is the problem of sin which they refuse to face. Sin blinds their eyes so that they willfully reject the doctrine of the Creator (2 Cor 4:4; Rms 1:18).

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason [only], the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
- Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

Leading a person to this “final rock” does not bring him or her to knowledge of the Rock of the Bible. That can only be accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit. However, be prepared for Him to use you in leading the genuine seeker to Christ. Pray that,

“God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will”
- 2 Tim 2:25-26

--------

[i] Adapted from How Now Shall We Live?, Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey, (Tyndale House Publishers, 1999), ch. 40.
[ii] Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, (1984; pp. 5, 23). This document also states, “Teaching creationism is like asking our children to believe on faith ... that the dimensions of the world are the same as those depicted in maps drawn in the days before Columbus set sail.”
[iii] Evolutionary methodology is filled with circular reasoning, i.e., the conclusion assumes the point in question (also called “begging the question”). It sounds as if there is logical deduction of new information, but in reality it is repetition of the same information only in different words.
[iv] An example is Newtonian mechanics – the simple laws of motion you are taught in High School physics. It explains well the flight of a baseball, but it does not hold as the velocity of the ball approaches the speed of light. New parameters, developed by Einstein and others, must be introduced. Sometimes the whole model needs to be replaced.
[v] Unfortunately some of us are too quick to say “God did it” while searching for scientific explanations of physical phenomena. Sure, “God did everything” but that knowledge should not be used to stifle scientific inquiry. The early scientists kept probing, “How did God do it?” Through the natural laws He created? By direct special intervention? With great passion they attempted to “seek God’s mind after Him.” God beckons us to seek Him and to understand Him and His creation, and there should be no end to our curiosity and inquiry.
[vi] At some point, however, we reach a limit to our scientific inquiry beyond which we must employ philosophical and theological reasoning. See “The limits of Naturalism” in the diagram in Lesson 3.
[vii] German idealistic philosopher Georg F. Hegel (1770-1831) formulated the famous “dialectic” -- a new idea (thesis) will soon be diametrically opposed (anti-thesis). The conjunction of the thesis and antithesis will result in a new thesis (synthesis). Progress is continually forthcoming as the process continues onward and upward ad infinitum.
[viii] Recently some astrophysicists have re-introduced Einstein’s fifth force of physics to explain the apparent higher rate of big-bang expansion of the universe at its outer limits. The point is that scientists as well as theologians resort to “gap” explanations when no better alternative exists. Each side needs to be more humble about their assumptions and conclusions.
[ix] Toward a Theoretical Biology, Some Remarks on the Notion of Order, (Edinburgh University Press, 1969).
[x] The Right Questions, Truth, Meaning & Public Debate, Phillip E. Johnson, (InterVarsity Press, 2002).
[xi] Three evangelical Christian universities come to mind that are successfully competing academically with their secular counterparts while maintaining their commitment to Jesus Christ. Baylor University is on a mission to compete in most major fields and at all levels through the Ph.D. program; Wheaton College at the undergraduate liberal arts level; and Biola University in their philosophy department.
[xii] This view says that the “6 days of creation” is the account of God preparing the “promised land” as a place for humanity. Genesis Unbound, John Sailhamer, (Multnomah Books, 1996).
[xiii] Taken from Breakpoint, 8/29/2004, http://www.breakpoint.org/.

2005-02-01T16:39:00.000-08:00

Lesson 9 – Consciousness, Soul, and the Afterlife[i]

The process of thought requires a genuine enduring “I”.
-- Immanuel Kant

I give eternal life to them and they shall never perish.
-- Jn 10:28

I – THE CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION

How does evolution explain human consciousness?

Evolution cannot account for my self-conscious awareness. I am aware of many things at one time – colors, sounds, feelings, etc. but this does not result in a “heap of awareness.” My mind integrates these things into one experience that I call my own self-conscious awareness. Atheist Professor Colin McGinn asks, “How can mere matter originate consciousness? How did evolution convert the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness? Consciousness seems like a radical novelty in the universe, not prefigured by the aftereffects of the Big Bang. So how did it contrive to spring into being from what preceded it?”

The content of our thinking is not limited of the way to the “natural world only” with its boundaries of space and time (see figure in Lesson 3). Our minds also conceive of abstract universal notions such as truth, goodness and beauty which do not take up space or time; and can exist in multiple minds all at once. Whatever that kind of thinking is -- it is “outside the box” of naturalism. It is not explainable in terms of material reality and evolutionary processes only.

Imagine the history of the universe without God. Up until the appearance of living creatures all we have is dead matter without consciousness – there are no thoughts, feelings, sensations, free actions, choices, or purposes. There would be merely one physical event after another, all behaving in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. How then can we ever even imagine something as radically different in essence as consciousness evolving from physical entities? That’s getting something from nothing, which is against every known law of science and logic. All you get from applying physical processes (such as mutation and natural selection) to physical matter is a different arrangement of the starting physical stuff. Consciousness is a jump of a totally different kind. However, if you start with an Intelligent Designer and Creator you can explain how minds with consciousness come into existence.

How does evolution explain the soul?

In naturalism (the natural or material world is all there is), nothing survives the grave. Death ends all of me. This view was seldom held before the so-called Enlightenment, but it is now the majority view held by the intellectually elite and one of the major axioms of naturalism. But the Bible says that human beings are a unity of two realities -- body and soul (Mk 8:36). There is that part of me which extends in 3-dimensions taking up space that we call “matter.” But there also is that part of me of a “different kind” which we know as “soul.” It is the soul that animates matter and gives it its vital energy. Scripture says that God breathed life into lifeless matter (Gen 2:7). And, it is the soul that possesses eternal life beyond the grave (Lk 16:22).

One of the driving forces behind the universal acceptance of Darwinism by the intellectual elite nurtured by the Enlightenment is the fact that if one believes in God, then a naturalistic view of the world is not a viable option. If one believes in a designer/creator God, evolution thorough variation and natural selection could be seen as superfluous. If one believes that God intervened by special creation of organisms, then Darwin’s theory could be seen as superfluous. If the soul exists, it would be beyond the reach of evolutionary theory and would threaten its very possibility. So, like creationism and intelligent design, the soul’s existence has been rejected by the dogma of naturalistic evolution which has become the intellectual pacifier of secularism.

How can evolution “explain” anything?

Evolutionists claim that their doctrine is true. They expect us to consider their arguments and agree with their conclusions – just as I expect them to do with mine. But to judge anything -- to engage in critical thinking -- one must be free to consider and weigh the merits of the things we’re judging. No courtroom judge, for example, would ever be one of the prisoners on trial. It is my mind that does the judging. But a mind that thinks has a transcendent reality to the brain which is material. Therefore, my mind must be non-material.

Why would an evolutionist trust anything that originated in an evolved brain that was formed by random forces and natural selection? Would you trust a printout from a computer that was programmed by random forces? (I have a hard enough time trusting printouts programmed by intelligent forces.) Theoretical thinking (which takes place in the mind) does not contribute directly to survival value. So how can evolution be a plausible hypothesis of the mind as it is the center of theoretical thinking? British evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane acknowledged that, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of the atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain [mind] to be composed of atoms.”[ii] In one of the most bizarre murder cases of 2004 (and perhaps the century), the crime scene investigator was asked, “Why would she (the murderer) commit such a heinous act?” to which the investigator promptly replied, “You can’t think rationally about irrational things.”

Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse admits that there is no evolutionary answer to the question, “Why should I, even as I now write, be able to reflect on what I am doing; and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this.”[iii] Yet many evolutionary-minded techno prophets predict that computers in the 3rd millennium will be capable of the intellectual capacities of human beings; some claiming those capacities to include the full range of emotional and spiritual experience as well – even surpassing their human counterparts and achieving consciousness! These Darwinian naturalists contend, as Harvard sociobiologist E. O. Wilson puts it, that “Conscious experience is a physical and not a supernatural phenomenon.”[iv] Francis Crick said that we are no more than physical beings with our behavior determined by our “vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Creationists and many brain scientists contend that computer consciousness is an absurdity. All computers will “ever be able to do is shuffle symbols,” as evolutionist John Searle at U. C. Berkeley says. After a century of Darwinian optimism, many researchers today are starting to agree with him. Evidence is accumulating, and becoming overwhelming as we shall see below, that human beings have a dual nature (dualism): one immaterial (mind, soul, consciousness), and one material -- brain, body, and physical nature.

No hope for Darwinism

As evolutionary theory fails at every turn, there will never be a complete scientific account of the nature and origin of mankind as long as the evolutionary paradigm reigns supreme among the intellectually elite. There will never be a scientific explanation for the emergence of mind and consciousness. Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the greatest living American philosopher, concludes, “Things don’t look hopeful for Darwinian naturalists.” Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner in physics, said scientists may have to “bypass the problem of consciousness” altogether because “it may just be too hard for us (Darwinists).”[v] In other words, evolution fails to give us the answers we want. Darwin said in his notebooks that if there was anything in his theory that could not be explained by naturalism, then there would have to be a creationist explanation. Darwin’s theory has met a complete dead-end when confronted by explaining consciousness and the soul. It’s time for science to escape the shackles of Darwin’s general (macro) theory of evolution and face-up to the reality of the non-material world. As long as science continues to confine its scope to “inside the box” of naturalism, it will remain cut off from the full spectrum of reality and from pursuing truth wherever it may lead.

Philosopher Robert Augros and physicist George Stanciu, who have explored the depths of the consciousness and soul controversy conclude that “physics, neuroscience, and humanistic psychology all converge on the same principle: mind is not reducible to matter” They added: “The vain expectation that matter might someday account for mind … is like the alchemist’s dream of producing gold from lead.”[vi] And yet, “The most censored speech in the United States today is not flag-burning, pornography or the press,” according to Phyllis Schlafly. “The worst censors are those who prohibit classroom criticism of the theory of evolution.” Renaissance thinker Michel Montaigne had it right when he said, “Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known.”

II – WHAT IS THE SOUL?

The Mind/Body Problem

We live in a culture so saturated with scientific naturalism that we are indoctrinated every day to view human beings as nothing more than having one nature: that of an evolved animal in a physical machine. The conscious “I” is nothing more than physical and chemical animations of our brain -- and the soul and life after death is just a myth for those in need of believing that sort of thing. But is a human being composed only of matter – a body and a brain and nervous system? Or does a person have an immaterial part as well – a mind and soul? In scientific research this study is known as the Mind/Body Problem. The two main views held are that human beings are either:

A brain/nervous system (matter) only. This materialistic-only view is known as Physicalism. or,

A material part (body, brain) and an immaterial part (mind, soul, spirit). This view is known as Dualism.

According to physicalism, a human being is merely a physical entity consisting of matter, physical properties of the matter (those items about matter listed in a physics or chemistry handbook, e.g., size, shape, volume, hardness, electrical, chemical or magnetic properties); and physical events (the coming or going of those properties over time). Everything in the body can be explained in terms of certain electrical and chemical events happening in the brain and the central nervous system. My conscious mental life of thoughts, emotions, and pain are nothing more than physical events in my brain and my nervous system. Consciousness can be explained in merely physical terms.

Dualists disagree with physicalists. Consciousness and mental states cannot be explained in merely physical terms. For example we have:

Sensations, through which we experience various phenomena such as color, sounds, smells, tastes, textures, pains and itches. They all have a different conscious “feeling” that isn’t physical.

Attitudes, through which I can hope, desire, fear, dread, wish, think, and believe about things. I hope that it will rain tomorrow. I dread spiders, etc. My attitudes are not physical entities.

Purposing, i.e., acts of will: intentional acts that I commit, or try to bring about. There is no physical explanation for volitional acts.

The brain is a physical substance that has physical properties and the mind or soul is a mental substance that has mental properties. When I am in pain, the brain has certain physical properties (electrical, chemical), and the mind has certain mental properties (the conscious awareness of pain). The mind and the brain interact with each other, and their functions are highly correlated, but they are completely different entities. Also, since the soul is not identified with any part of the brain or with any particular physical experience, the soul (mind) survives the destruction of the body.

If physicalism were true then everything that was true about the brain would also be true about the mind and vice versa. If only one thing were true of one and not the other, then dualism is established. The mind is not the brain. Even if scientists could find a physical activity in the brain for every mental state, that only establishes correlation, it does not establish identity. The identity of the mind and brain could only be established if each and every aspect of the brain and the mind were true of each – and it’s not.

The nature of the soul

A person has two natures – a physical nature which is material (body, brain) and a non-physical nature which is immaterial (soul, mind). The mind is the source of the mental abilities of the soul. The Bible teaches the duality of human nature: a human being is a unity of two distinct natures: body and soul. More specifically, I am a soul and I have a body. The soul (which is the same thing as the self or the “I”) is an immaterial, invisible entity that makes me a conscious, living human being. The soul is what I am cognizant of when I engage in various acts of introspection. It is that which I am aware of when I ponder what is going on “inside” me. The body is only the material (physical) container for the soul. If my soul leaves my body, “I” leave my body because I am my soul. You can search in vain throughout your body and you will never find your soul, i.e., the physical place where your thoughts, feelings, sensations, and your “I” resides.

Mental states of the soul

There are at least five of them:

Sensations – a state of awareness; a mode of consciousness. I “see” with my mind, not my eyes. My eyes are a physical instrument that detect physical electromagnetic waves (physical phenomena) in the “visible” spectrum (the limits of the eye’s detection capability). My eyes (and my body in general) are the instruments my mind (“I”) uses to experience the external world.

Thoughts – are the mental content of the soul. Even if they are expressed in words, the thoughts in the mind of a speaker are invisible. They are not physical.

Beliefs – are a person’s views, held to varying degrees of strength, as to how things really are. My thoughts exist only while they are being thought, but my beliefs are the basis on which I act.

Desires – are a certain inclination to do, have, or experience certain things. They may be conscious, or they may be unconscious, but are distinct mental experiences of the soul.

Will – is a volition or free choice; an exercise of my power; or my endeavoring to do a certain thing. When I act freely I am the “first mover”; i.e., there is no event that necessarily compels me to act. I must will it. My desires, beliefs, thoughts and sensations may influence my choice, but my will is not necessarily caused by any of these things.

Faculties of the soul

The faculties of the soul are those mental and spiritual capacities with which we have been endowed. We have faculties of sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. Taken together, these are the sensory faculties of the soul. However, we also have emotional faculties of the soul which include our abilities to experience love, fear, joy, etc. My will is a faculty that contains my abilities to choose and act.

The mind is that faculty of the soul that contains my thoughts and beliefs along with the abilities to have them. It is with my mind that I think, and my mind contains my beliefs.

The spirit is that faculty of the soul through which I relate to God:

Ps 51:10 – O God, renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Rom 8:16 – The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

Eph 4:23 – And that you may be renewed in the spirit of your mind.

Before the new birth my spirit had limited ability to relate to God; most of the capacity of my spirit was dead and inoperative. When I was born again, however, God implanted new capacity within my spirit.

What does the Bible say about the soul?

In Scripture, “soul” (Hb: nephesh; Gr: psyche; Latin anima) is defined as the essence of being or life; the animating principle which ultimately is derived from God who “breathed” life into mankind (Hb: adam, “human being”). Likewise “death” is described as occurring when the breath ceases, i.e., when the nephesh departs. Gen 35:18 says that when Rachel died in childbirth with Benjamin, “her soul was departing.” Elijah prayed for the nephesh to return to the dead son of the Zarephath widow for, “there was no breath left in him (1 Ki 17:17). The OT states clearly that “life (nephesh) is in the blood” (Deu 12:23); and that the Suffering Servant’s “life’s blood” or “soul” will be poured out (Is 53:12) for our redemption. (See also Ps 116:4 and Ps 34:22). Nephesh is also used as the description of thought, memory and consciousness, as well as the full range of needs, desires and feelings (Ps 103:2; Lam 3:20).

In the NT, psyche carries over the same basic meaning of the Hebrew nephesh. Jesus makes clear that the psyche is the true person and is distinct from the body: “Do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10:28). At death a transformation takes place in which our body disintegrates, but our soul continues to exist in the afterlife (1 Cor 15:50-54; Rev 6:9; 20:4). To Jesus, our soul is priceless, “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul? (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). He gave His own psyche to redeem us (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). Jesus said that those who try to save their own soul will lose it, but those who will willingly lose their psyche for His sake will gain it (Mt 16:25; Mk 8:35; Lk 9:24). Jesus demonstrates His words by voluntarily dying on the cross for our souls. In His resurrection from the dead, our souls gain eternal life (Rms 5:6-9; 10:9; Lk 23:39-43).

A brief word study of “soul” in the OT and NT reveals

All souls (life) are Mine, says the Lord (Ex 18:4)

We are told to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Deu 6:5; 30:6; Josh 22:5; 2 Kings 23:25; Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27)

The Psalmist says that his soul pants for God (42:1); his soul thirsts for God (63:1); his soul clings to God (63:8); his soul rejoices in the Lord (35:9); and the Lord restores his soul (23:3)

Jonathan’s soul was knit to the soul of David as he loved David as his own soul (1 Sam 18:1)

Job’s friend tells him that when man’s flesh and bones waste away, his soul draws near to the pit (Job 33:21-22).

In the parable of the rich man, God says to him, “You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?” So is the man who lays up material possessions for himself and is not rich toward God. (Lk12:20-21)

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus said that His soul was deeply grieved to the point of death (Mt 26:38)

Peter tells us to abstain from fleshly lust which wages war against the soul (1 Pet 2:11)

James tells us to put aside all filthiness and wickedness and receive the word of God which is able to save our souls (Jms 1:21).

Do animals have souls?

Scripture teaches that animals as well as humans have souls. In the OT, nephesh (soul) and ruach (spirit) are used of animals (Gen 1:30, Ecc 3:21). In the NT, psyche (soul) is used of animals in Rev 8:9. Moreover, it is a matter of common sense that animals are not merely unconscious machines. Rather they are conscious living beings with sensations, emotions (such as fear), and desires. And some animals apparently have thoughts and beliefs. The history of Christian teaching is widely united in affirming the existence of the “souls of men and beasts.”

Animals, however, do not seem to have moral awareness – the notion of virtue, of duty, or of another thing having intrinsic value and rights. Animals do not seem to entertain abstract thoughts. Augustine once noted that animals have desires, but they do not have desires to have desires. They don’t think about thinking. They are not aware of their awareness.

The Bible is not clear as to whether or not an animal soul survives death. There are no compelling statements for or against the idea. There are texts about animals in heaven, e.g., the wolf lying down with the lamb (Is 11:6), but it is not clear that these are animals resurrected from their earthly bodies.

When is the soul created?

Throughout the history of the Church there have been two competing views.

Creationists – believe that God creates the human soul directly on the occasion of certain physical events, e.g., the moment of conception when a sperm fertilizes an egg. However, God could create a soul at any other time of His choosing, e.g., upon cloning.

Traducians – believe there exists soulish potentialities within the egg and sperm so that a soul emerges during the normal process of fertilization. With regard to cloning? There may be soulish potentialities latent within living cells other than the sperm or egg.

III – EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL

Evidence from brain research

The father of modern neurosurgery, Wilder Penfield, performed surgery on more than a thousand epileptic patients. In one of his experiments, he would electrically stimulate a motor function of the brain, e.g., the movement of one hand, and then challenge the patient to keep that hand still while the current was being applied. The patient would seize the stimulated hand with the other and struggle to hold it still as his mind fought against the stimulation. Invariably, the patient would respond by saying, “I didn’t do that; you did.” The patient thought of himself as having an experience separate from his body. No matter where Penfield probed the cerebral cortex he found, “There is no place … where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide.” Penfield came to believe in the existence of the soul based on his experiments and said what a thrill it was that as a scientist he could come to that point scientifically.[vii]

John Eccles, the eminent neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate came to the belief that, “there is what we might call a supernatural origin of my unique self-conscious mind, or my unique selfhood or soul.”[viii] Nobel laureate Sir Charles Sherrington, an Oxford professor of physiology declared, “For me now, the only reality is the human soul.” Many brain scientists have been compelled to postulate the existence of the immaterial mind even though they may not embrace an afterlife. No matter, hard core naturalists continue to have faith that evolution will eventually discover the naturalistic explanation. Given Darwinism as a non-negotiable starting point there really is no other choice for them.

Evidence from near-death experiences (NDE)

People who are clinically dead sometimes have a vantage point of an object or event “outside their body” and gain information that they couldn’t have possibly known if it was just an illusion in their brain. One woman died and she saw a tennis shoe on the roof of the hospital. As far back as 1965, an article in The Humanist stated that near-death experiences indicate “a dualistic world where mind or spirit has an existence separate from the world of material things … presenting a challenge to humanism as profound in its own way as that which Darwinian evolution did to Christianity a century ago.”

Evidence regarding artificial intelligence (AI)

There is great hope among naturalistic scientists that a computer will eventually be able to perform all the functions of the human mind. But much of AI research makes a fundamental error – it equates artificial intelligence (the kind of thing computers do) with intelligence itself. This is a mistake. Computers do not think, see, hear, feel, love, or have consciousness. They cannot think through a logical set of propositions and draw a conclusion. They just imitate mental states and intellectual activity.

To illustrate how computers imitate human thinking but cannot replace it, consider the following experiment.[ix] Imagine your job is to translate the Arabic language into the Chinese language, and you know nothing about either one of them. You are put in a closed room and are given instructions that when certain Arabic symbols are presented you are to map those symbols (translate) into a certain set of Chinese symbols. After a while you are very good at manipulating these symbols, and to an observer outside the room it appears that the “computer” (that’s you) is good at translating Arabic to Chinese. You (the computer) behave exactly as if you understand Arabic and Chinese, but you don’t have a clue about understanding the content of your “translation.” Computers and their programs are not minds – they fail to have consciousness, intentionality and real understanding of content. AI can merely imitate a mind; it cannot function as one. There’s an ancient proverb that says one will achieve real knowledge when one realizes the difference between the container and the content! In brain research that means to realize the difference between the mind (content) and the brain (container).

There is no evidence whatsoever that computers will ever achieve self-consciousness. Nobel Prize winner John Eccles said he’s “appalled by the naiveté of those who foresee computer sentience.” Computers have artificial intelligence, not intelligence. A computer has no awareness; no first-person point of view; no insights into problems. A computer doesn’t think, “Aha, now I understand what multiplication is all about.” Consciousness is not the same thing as behavior. A computer can be programmed to simulate behavior, but it cannot possess consciousness. Suppose we are able to build a computerized dog, and we were able to simulate everything physical about it – body structure, organs, behavior, etc. No matter how sophisticated we get there will always be one thing we will never be able to program – what it’s like to be a dog! What it’s like to hear, to feel, to experience sound and color from the dog’s subjective point of view. Computers may imitate intelligence but they will never be able to possess consciousness. We can’t confuse behavior with what it’s like to be alive, awake, and conscious. Consciousness is an immaterial reality apart from the brain.

Will anyone ever decode the human brain?

In an article, The Myth of Mind Control in the October 2004 issue of Discover magazine, brain scientists report on their attempt to decipher the so-called “neural code” – the brain’s “software” that allows it to “think.” One research team leader at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) says he ranks the understanding of the neural code right up there with the top two mysteries of the universe: the origin of the universe, and the origin of life. The neural code is the key to understanding the mind-body problem: “How that wrinkled mass of jelly in our skull generates a unique conscious self with a sense of personal identity and autonomy.”

The brain contains over 100 billion cells and each cell is linked via synapses to more than 100,000 other cells. The brain performs at least one million billion operations per second. And, the most vital components of transmission may be the electrical and magnetic fields generated by synaptic currents that constantly ripple through the brain and produce almost instant comprehension. For example, “When you pick up a phone and hear a voice, from the very first moment, even before you understand any meaning of the words, you know who you are talking to and what her emotional state is.”

Some evolutionary brain scientists have faith that someday they will ferret out the brain’s information processing abilities, but even most of these also believe that certain aspects will remain inviolable. Our most meaningful thoughts and memories are written in a code (language) that is unique to each of us; hence it will always be a mystery. No conceivable technology can discern all the memories, emotions, and meanings aroused in us by our perceptions, because these emerge from the experiential history of each individual. “You hear a stale pop tune, I hear my wedding song,” one brain scientist says. The uniqueness of each individual represents a fundamental barrier to scientific understanding and control of the mind. Even if AI ever succeeds in building a computer based on the neural coding scheme of the brain, we will not be able to read “its mind.”

IV – PHYSICALISM CANNOT BE TRUE

Recall physicalism is the name given to the belief that a human being is only a physical entity consisting of matter alone (has no immaterial dimension). Dualists (Creationists and others who believe in the dual nature of human beings – mind and body) disagree with physicalists. Consciousness cannot be explained in merely physical terms for several reasons:

Mental vs. physical events
Physical events that take place in my brain and nervous system, e.g., cortex stimulation, can only be described using terms of chemistry and physics. On the other hand, mental events, e.g., feelings of pain, episodes of thoughts, or sensory experiences, etc., can’t be described in physical terms only. My thoughts, feelings or sensory experiences don’t have any weight; can’t be found in a particular point in space; are not composed of chemicals and do not have electrical properties. I can picture a pink elephant in my mind, but you cannot find a pink elephant image anywhere in my brain. You can only “find” it, if I tell you it’s there. Sense images are mental entities, not physical ones.

Private access
I have private access into my own mental life and no one else does. My mental states, such as feeling sad, experiencing red, having a thought that “3 is an odd number,” are directly in my own thoughts and no one has access to them but me. That is not the case with physical objects, including my brain. Physical objects are “public” objects and no one is in a privileged position regarding them. A scientist can discover a lot about my brain, but he can never know about my mental life unless I tell him. I can even be wrong about the physical facts, but it doesn’t affect my mental state, unless I allow it to. For example, I can be wrong if I think that there’s a chair in the next room. But I cannot be wrong about the fact that I think the chair is there. Thus physical states are not identical to mental states.

Subjective vs. objective experiences
I experience sounds, tastes, colors, thoughts, and pains subjectively. It is my (and only my) point of view. It is not objective, i.e., accessible to public scrutiny. If the world were made of matter only, these subjective aspects of my consciousness would not exist. But they do exist! So there must be more to my “inner world” than just matter.

Is red nothing more than a wavelength?
We are led by naturalistic scientists to think so, but common sense tells us that the physical phenomenon of wavelength and my experience of the color red are two entirely different things. The first exists in the physical realm, and the second in the mental realm. My experience of red does not have physical properties, but the physical reality of red does (i.e., its wavelength).

Intentionality
Mental states involving intention point beyond themselves to other things, which don’t even have to exist physically: for example, the love of another person; even the fear of a spider. Intentionality is not a property of anything physical. Mental states are not physical states.

Awareness of self
We are aware of our own self (our ego, I, consciousness) as being distinct from our bodies. I have a direct awareness that I am not identical to my body. Rather, I am aware that I am a “self” that has a body and a conscious mental life. Physicalists cannot explain this. Remember Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.”

I am more than a “third person”
If the physicalist description of the world were true, everything could be described from a 3rd person point of view, i.e., in terms of objects, properties, processes, location, etc. But reality can’t be fully explained that way because there is always my point a view (1st person) as well. In physicalism there are no privileged 1st person perspectives. However, no amount of 3rd party description will ever capture my own subjective 1st person awareness of myself and the object I am describing. I can only express that awareness using the term “I” as I am in this sentence talking to “you.”

Am “I” the same person I was a moment ago?
Physically, each moment I lose hundreds of thousands of skin cells - and in my case hair cells as well. In fact, every seven years my cells are almost entirely replaced. Am I still me? Well of course I am. My “self” (my soul) remains constant throughout the change of my physical self - even the catastrophic change when my body dies. I am aware of the fact that I am the same self that continues to exist throughout my lifetime. The Bible tells us that we will continue to possess that awareness even after our physical body ceases to function. My soul will remain throughout eternity. In fact, when I enter eternity I will even get a new body -- an imperishable, resurrected one -- to re-unite with my soul (1 Cor 15:40-58).

Free will, morality, responsibility and punishment
If physicalism is true, then human free will does not exist. If I am just a physical body and brain, there is nothing in me that has the capacity to freely choose to do something. Instead all my actions and choices are pre-programmed (determined) by physical phenomena, including mutation and natural selection. In social evolutionary theory it’s my genes that “make me do it” rather than my immaterial self choosing to do it. How then do I ever make sense out of morality which must presuppose that I have real free-will choices to make? Physicalism requires a radical revision of our commonsense notions of freedom, moral obligation, responsibility and punishment. On the other hand, if these common sense notions are true, then physicalism is false and dualism is established.

Determinism cannot be true – logically
If determinism were true then the arguments for it are not real arguments, but only conditioned reflexes. If my mental processes are totally determined by physical means, then my arguments for it would be nothing more than conditioned reflexes, not real choices.

Philosophical arguments against naturalism and physicalism

As previously noted, the naturalistic indoctrination that our mind and our brain are the same thing is so pervasive in our society that we unconsciously speak and act as though the mind is just a complex computer made of physical components. But we have shown that physicalism (like the naturalistic philosophy that spawns it) is a cultural myth that is absurd and false no mater how widely it may be held. Naturalism and physicalism are limited subsets of knowledge that do not ascend other forms of knowledge. Naturalism fails to account for things we all know to have a factual basis outside the purview of science – ethics, politics, philosophy, theology, law, literature, art, etc. (“outside the box” in the figure in Lesson 3). Naturalism cannot be the sole arbiter of reality. Therefore, it must be either assumed a priori, or judged valid by the accumulation of the preponderance of the evidence when evaluated against other truth claims such as creationism.

Also, we have shown from the evidence above that dualism is a better explanation of reality than physicalism. A person is comprised of both a soul and a body (dualism), not just a body alone (physicalism). Physicalism is a statement of philosophy, not a scientific fact. Its pre-suppositions cannot be tested so it can’t be proven to be true or false; its truth must either be assumed, or judged “true” in comparison to competing theories such as dualism. The “scientific method” for deciding between physicalism and dualism is to collect the best information available and make the best inference based on the observable data. As shown above, dualism is the clear winner.

Likewise, naturalism (the philosophical basis of physicalism) rests on philosophical, and not scientific assumptions: that the universe is orderly, knowable and uniform; that truth and logic exist, and mathematics objectively models it; that our intellect and 5 senses are reliable tools for gathering truth; etc. If naturalism rules out “intelligent design” and “dualism” because they rest on philosophical assumptions, then it commits intellectual suicide itself as it rules out the foundation on which it is also based.

V – THE AFTERLIFE AND EVIDENCE FOR IT

In evolutionary theory and physicalism, life ends at the grave. Creationists, however, believe in dualism whereby human beings are comprised of two natures: a soul (mind) and a body (brain). Dualism makes eternal life plausible. If physicalism were true, then with the death of the body the person would become extinct -- annihilated. Dualism makes survival in an afterlife intelligible. The person in the after life is the same person they were in physical life because that person’s soul (self, I) survives the grave. Dualism breaks the stranglehold that naturalism and physicalism have on belief in eternal life because it supports a belief in God and a transcendent reality “outside the box” of naturalism. The existence of the soul provides evidence for the existence of the immaterial and eternal God who created it. Something cannot come from nothing, and an immaterial soul cannot come from mere matter alone. Dualism argues against validity of the theory of evolution.

Evidence for the afterlife from authority

Nearly all cultures, and the vast majority of all individuals who have ever lived, believed in life after death. Children naturally and spontaneously believe it unless they are conditioned out of it; they do not have to be conditioned into it. Critics say we believe this way because of fear, wishful thinking, social conditioning, or religious indoctrination. But consider – social and religious conditioning or indoctrination merely passes the buck back to an earlier generation without answering the question where the belief originated. And, if fear prevented us from believing in final annihilation, why didn’t it prevent us from believing in something much worse than annihilation – namely eternal life in hell?

Nearly all the wise sages of antiquity have believed in life after death – Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zoroaster, Gilgamesh, Lao-tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, Maimonides, Augustine and Aquinas. And obviously the biblical sages – Moses, Job, the OT and NT prophets, and of course the Son of God Himself, Jesus Christ. Jesus’ belief in life after death is central to His teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven.

Evidence from reason

The Genesis account of origins shows the progression of creation from simple to complex in stages; the origin of human consciousness being the culmination. Evolutionary theory also portrays the same progression – from less to more conscious and complex organisms. Now if physical death is our final destination, then human consciousness for the evolutionist is Mother Nature’s abortion. Our progression is in vain. Nature conceives us only to kill us. For the creationist, however, God has a plan that culminates in the afterlife.

Life after death is the most natural and obvious worldview to even the most primitive of humans, and is assumed to be the case by most people today regardless of their religious belief. Suppose a primitive has two cows and one dies. He ponders – what’s the difference between the dead cow and the live cow? There’s no material difference (size weight, color, etc.) between the cow when it was alive, and now that it is dead. Yet something is clearly missing. Life! He ponders, “What is life?” and concludes that life is what makes the live cow breathe, or makes its heart beat, or makes it process food. He concludes that life is not a material thing, like an organ. It is something by which the cow lives. Bodies die by the removal of something immaterial called “life.” The immaterial he calls “soul” and readily concludes since it is not material it does not die – only bodies die. Bodies die because they have life taken from them.

What is mind over matter? When I am dead, my body responds only to its obedience to physical laws. But while I am alive, I can control physical laws with my mind. I can defy the law of gravity by jumping up. I can “levitate” by shear thought and will power; i.e., I can raise my arms at will. We can command our bodies to overcome the laws of physics when we are alive, but when I die, even though my arms, legs, muscles, nerves and brain still remain, there is no longer any “I” (mind) to control the material me.

I can know my body as an object only because I am more than my body. A “knowing” subject must be more than the known object, just like a projecting machine can project images on a screen because it is not merely an image – it is more than the image. The knower must transcend the known.

The evolutionist says we are no more than a bundle of “instincts” fashioned by natural forces and responding accordingly. But if there were only instinct in us, and not will, then the strongest instinct would always win – it’s the survival of the fittest. That is not the case, for I can, and sometimes do, choose contrary to my strongest instincts: For example, when I choose to follow the weaker instinct of compassion rather than the stronger instinct of fear and self-preservation; or when I choose to be altruistic rather than self-serving.

The evolutionist says that our mind and our brain are the same thing; that the brain is nothing more than random atoms cobbled together over time, and that its “programming” has been done by heredity (genetics) and environment (society). Ultimately, however, our programming has been accomplished by unintelligent, undesigned, random chance, brute forces and physical causes. There is no logical source of our reasoning ability. But this is an absurdity. If that were true we should have absolutely no reason to trust our brain when it “tells” us about anything, including itself and how it came to be. If materialism is not true, then there must be an immaterial reality – the soul – which is not subject to material reality, including mortality.

Evidence from our experience

If there is no ultimate objective justification for justice, then there can be no ultimate basis for morality. As Dostoyevsky said, “Without God (and immortality), everything is permissible.” Some intellectual elites argue against this and end up with moral nihilism – an untenable position for society and a self-refuting position even from the perspective of one’s own experience. The afterlife with its demand for justice sets the ethical standards for moral behavior in this life.

We all experience the need (demand) that our life must have a purpose, a goal, a final good. This is a primary need of mankind; and material wealth, power and pleasure will be sacrificed in order to obtain it. But if our life ends in annihilation, then life does not have a purpose worth living for. Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell called us to build our lives on “the firm foundation of unyielding despair.” But this is psychologically impossible and logically contradictory. Despair is not a “firm foundation” but precisely the lack of one. The afterlife gives us the ultimate target to aim for in this life.

We all want happiness. And our experience is that happiness is more than our material possessions and the satisfaction of our desires. Joy comes from a peace within us, not from our materialism. Mark 8:36 puts it this way, “What profit a man if he gain the whole world, but loses his soul?”

We all long in our inward being for something that can’t seem to be satisfied in this life – a “longing” of some sort for “completeness.” Even the atheist Sarte admitted that: “There comes a time when we must ask, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, ‘Is that all there is?’ ” This “something more” is what the Bible calls eternal life (“He has also set eternity in their heart” Ecc 3:11). Every innate desire in us, as distinct from artificial and conditioned desires, corresponds to a real life object which can satisfy that desire. If it’s thirst, then drink; if its eros, then sex; if it’s curiosity, then knowledge; if it’s loneliness, then it’s another person. But the “longing” I’m talking about goes beyond all of these. We are never completely satisfied with anything this world has to offer. Why else would we constantly complain? The world’s solution to any felt need is never enough. The solution to this continued innate hunger must exit, just as the innate hunger for food proves that food exists. However, inadequately we may understand what we are after; it is somehow characterized by terms such as “paradise,” “eternity,” the “divine life.” Augustine put it this way, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.”

We all want to experience true love. Not the love that is conditional; not the love that is for physical pleasure only; and not the love that treats me as an object. But true agape love that sees me as indispensable as I see myself: A love that is unconditional and not seeking something in return. But this kind of love requires that you choose to receive it. It is free and not a compulsion. But if you do not choose to love, you will not see it. If you really want to know about it, you must try it. The road to certainty to finding ultimate love and immortality is to reach out and not just think about it. In the Brothers Karamazov, Father Zossima tells the “lady of little faith” who wonders how to regain her lost faith in immortality: “Insofar as you advance in love, you will grow surer of the reality of God and of the immortality of the soul. This has been tried. This is certain.” The way is offered to all sincere seekers with the promise that if they travel the road, they will surely see it. C. S. Lewis traveled that road and when one of his closest friends, Charles Williams, died he wrote, “No event has so corroborated my belief in the next life as Charles Williams did simply by dying. For when the idea of death and the idea of Williams thus met in my mind, it was the idea of death that was changed.” The strongest evidence to Lewis for immortality was what Williams did and what he was. Death did not change the meaning of Williams; Williams changed the meaning of death.

Between 10-40% of all living persons have had some experience of the real presence of the dead: usually a family member – someone close to them, who they actually see with their eyes and/or hear with their ears. The presence is always sudden and unexpected, and usually in a specific and limited space and time: “Grandma was in my bedroom last night.” Even the skeptic rarely doubts the veracity of this experience when it happens to him or her.

More than 20 million Americans claim to have had near-death experiences (NDE). It may be occasioned by the anticipation of death (as in an auto accident or a fall), or by a medical crisis during which heart and/or brain death is reversed. NDE experiences have many things in common but one thing is always present: certainty about life after death, and the eradication of any fear of it. They have experienced first-hand, life outside the mortal body. Analysis has shown that the likelihood of this being caused by chemically or psychologically induced hallucination seems very small. Also, biblical writers have claimed similar experiences without being near death. Sometimes they even claim to see the life of heaven; or life after death. The Apostle Paul had such an experience (2 Cor 12:2-6).

Biblical evidence based on God’s character

God is just. Therefore His dealing with us must reflect that attribute. But there is great injustice in the world. Here the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer. Hence “here” cannot be all there is. The short-run cannot be identical with the long-run; there must be justice to redress and compensate for the injustice suffered before death. In Lk 16:19-31, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus tells us about the afterlife. Lazarus who had a miserable time while in this world is now being comforted in heaven, while the unrighteous rich man is in agony -- in hell separated from God.

We are made in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and part of that image is our creative nature which we routinely exercise. We yearn (have a will) for our “creations” (whatever they may be) to last, but we lack the power to make that happen. God does not lack the preserving power or the creating-will. Since we are the pinnacle of His creation, it follows that we (human souls) will exist with Him forever.

God is love (1 Jn 4:8) and love does not kill, for love is the fulfillment of the law. Therefore, God does not kill us; He gives us eternal life. If we want human life to triumph over death, how much more must God? He give us the prescription in Jn 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Biblical evidence based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ

What would be the most convincing evidence for life after death? Skeptics would probably reply something along the lines of, “Only if I can put my hands into the wounds of a dead man who has risen from the dead and see for myself will I be absolutely sure” (see the example in Jn 20:24-29). But if the will is set against believing, even this evidence will not be enough to convince some (Lk 16:31).

The risen Christ was seen and touched by eyewitnesses (1 Jn 1:1-4); and Christians are assured of life after death, not by argumentation but through the first-hand witness accounts to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 15:1-58).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you.
- 1 Pet 1:3-4

Death is swallowed up in victory. ‘O death, where is your victory, where is your sting?’ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ.
- 1 Cor 15: 54-57

To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
- 2 Cor 5:8

Conclusion

Philosophical novelist Walker Percy poignantly surveys the state of affairs of the present day unbeliever’s avoidance of dealing with the reality of his own creation, personhood, and eventual death[x] …

The present-day unbeliever is crazy because he finds himself born into a world of endless wonders, having no notion how he got here, a world in which he eats, sleeps … works, grows old, gets sick, and dies … takes his comfort and ease, plays along with the world as if his prostrate were not growing cancerous, his arteries turning to chalk, his brain cells dying off by the million, as if the worms were not going to get him in no time at all.

And the godless academic …

The more intelligent he is … He reads Dante for its mythic structure. He joins the ACLU and concerns himself with the freedom of the individual and does not once exercise his own freedom to inquire how in God’s name he should find himself in such a ludicrous situation.

-----

[i] Much of this lesson on “consciousness and the soul” has been abstracted from the work of J. P. Moreland:
Beyond Death, Exploring the Evidence for Immortality, Gary Habermas, J. P. Moreland, (Crossway Books, 1998), ch. 2, 3, 4.
The Evidence of Consciousness: The Enigma of the Mind, an interview with J. P. Moreland, ch. 10 in The Case for A Creator, Lee Strobel, (Zondervan, 2004).
And, on the “afterlife” from the work of Peter Kreeft:
Life After Death, ch. 10 in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli, (InterVarsity Press, 1994).
[ii] When I Am Dead, J. B. S. Haldane in Possible Worlds and Other Essays, (Chatto and Winduw, 1927).
[iii] Can a Darwinian Be a Christian, Michael Ruse, (Oxford University Press, 2001).
[iv] Consilience, Edward O. Wilson, (Alfred A. Knopf, 1998).
[v] Both the Plantinga and Weinberg quotes appear in By Design, Larry Witham, (Encounter Books, 2003).
[vi] The New Story of Science, Robert W. Augros & George N. Stancui.
[vii] The Mystery of the Mind, Wilder Penfield, (Princeton University Press, 1975).
[viii] The Soul and Its Brain, Karl R. Popper & John C. Eccles, (Springer-Verlag, 1977).
[ix] Adapted from the “Chinese Room” example in Minds, Brains, and Science, John Searle, (Harvard University Press, 1984).
[x] The Second Coming, Walker Percy, (Farrer, Straus and Giroux, 1980); quoted by Marvin Olasky in World magazine, January 1/8, 2005.

2005-01-23T21:13:00.000-08:00

Lesson 8 – Intelligent Design

The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding He established the heavens.

-- Proverbs 3:19

When I first started studying, I saw the world as composed of particles. Looking more deeply I discovered waves. Now after a lifetime of study, it appears that all existence is the expression of information.

-- Scientist John Wheeler

A 1998 survey by the Skeptics’ Society found that among highly educated Americans, the #1 reason for believing in God was seeing “good design” and “complexity” in the world. At the heart of design theory is the fact that it can be empirically tested. That’s not good enough to qualify it as science according to Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the most prominent evolution advocacy group. She told CNN that, “design theory is not very good science, because it’s basically giving up and saying: We can’t explain this; therefore, God did it.”

If you listen closely to the science programs on TV you will hear regularly talk of “the designs of nature” and “the blueprint for life,” but when pressed for what the scientists mean by this talk they will explain, as does Richard Dawkins, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” In other words, one can replace the principle of design by blind, unconscious processes and produce the same thing. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, admits that, “The cell is thus a minute factory, bustling with rapid, organized chemical activity,” but then he goes on to say, “Nature invented the assembly line some billions of years before Henry Ford.” “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but evolved.” Crick and Dawkins want us to believe that natural selection achieves the same aspect of purpose without the intervention of a "purposer;" and that it has produced a great plan without the action of a planner. As they see it, scientists who see Intelligent Design (ID) in nature can’t imagine any naturalistic way to explain the high level of complexity in nature – so they give up. But these critics are missing the point. This is not about imagination. It’s a matter of logic. What’s the most plausible theory that matches all the observed facts -- chance or design?

As we discussed in Lesson 4, the same debate arises when astronomers look into the far reaches of the universe. What they discover is that the universe either “just happens” to be exactly calibrated to support life; or that is the product of intention – it’s been designed that way (Anthropic Principle). It’s amazing how far agnostic and atheistic scientists will go to avoid the possible inference of a Designer. It’s a “totally emotional and a dangerous reaction,” says David Gross the director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, “it smells of religion and intelligent design.”

The most powerful evidence for design is right here on planet Earth -- in the structure of the DNA code. Just the fact that it is called a “code” gives us a clue as to what we really have discovered. Even atheist Richard Dawkins admits, “Genetics has become a branch of information technology.” And, “The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as are computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is literal truth,” he exclaims. But how do we determine if something is a code (information) requiring a coder, or a something that can be produced either by chance or by natural law? ID theorist and mathematician William Demski explains that there are only three types of explanations for the origin of the information content of an object or event: (1) chance – produced by random events, (2) law – produced by some observable natural law or algorithm, (3) design – produced by an intelligent agent. As we will learn in this lesson, design is the best explanation for the origin of what we find in the DNA code.

Intelligent Design -- what does Scripture teach?

The Bible clearly teaches that, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” No matter how grand a "neo-Darwinian Synthesis" is proposed, evolutionary theory can offer no starting point (no “first cause”), and as we saw in the last lesson -- no explanation for the origin of the living cell, which is the basis of all life. Agnostic evolutionists must hold on to a faith position that something yet to be discovered will eventually explain how the evolutionary mechanism got started and works. On the other hand, the Bible clearly states that God is the Creator and Designer of all things. John 1:1-4 says: “In the beginning was the Word (Greek: “logos” - the original Designer), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” Scripture clearly teaches throughout, and it is well summarized in the first chapter of John, that God:

in Jesus Christ (identified as the Word) is the eternal. self-existent Designer and Creator of time, space, matter, energy and life

is an infinitely intelligent and powerful personal Spirit Being who is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnipresent (everywhere present)

in Jesus Christ created everything with purpose and design in mind

ultimately directs all things to accomplish His will and purpose

Evolution teaches that the universe and life were the result of purposeless random activity, assembled by chance encounters of molecules and directed by natural selection; there was no “agent” of design, it is entirely “undirected.” Scripture teaches that the whole of creation gives the “appearance of design” because, in fact, it was designed!

What is “design?”

Design is a little hard to define. Someone once said that, “Seeing design is a little like pornography. It’s hard to define, but you sure know what it is when you see it!” Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts. One infers that something (a system) has been designed when:

The system shows that it has a number of separate components that are ordered to accomplish a purpose, which none of the components could do by themselves (irreducible complexity)

There is no gradual route for producing the system. All the components arrive at the right time and are assembled into the right configuration to function when needed

The components of the system interact with great specificity to do something purposeful. As the number and quality of the components which fit together increases, one becomes more and more confident of the conclusion of design

Living organisms are irreducibly complex systems; therefore, we should confidently conclude that they were designed. It is fantasy to believe that an “as yet to be discovered natural process” will explain the design of a living system. Just as it is fantasy to believe that your personal computer could be “manufactured” by shaking together bits of sand, glass and metal in a paper bag. And that the software that directs the hardware was “developed” by shaking together bits of paper and ink. And, that a “chance encounter” of the hardware and software just happened to occur and produced a functioning computer!

Remember the old sci-fi movie 2001 -- the scene with the obelisk on the moon? It was just a chunk of stone yet everybody in the movie theater understood immediately that it was designed. There was no dialog. There didn’t have to be. The conclusion was obvious to everyone. The obelisk was designed by an intelligent agent and placed there by an intelligent agent. The audience would have booed and hissed had anybody asserted that the obelisk arose by purposeless natural random processes. Purposeful design is obvious, even if hard to describe.

SETI and the search for intelligent agency

Much of the evolutionary community believes that since life could take root and flourish on one small planet circling a rather ordinary star, the process is probably repeatable elsewhere in our galaxy. After all, the Milky Way has perhaps 20 billion sun-like stars and the universe has perhaps 100 billion galaxies similar to the Milky Way. Frank Drake, originator of the famous Drake equation[i] and president of the SETI Institute said, “The probability of finding life (in space) is 100%.” In 1992, Congress became enamored with the SETI project and appropriated $100 million for radio telescopes in hopes of discovering intelligent life in outer space.[ii] SETI scientists use the radio telescopes to search for radio “messages” from extraterrestrial intelligent beings who may be attempting to contact us. Success would demonstrate that intelligent life had emerged by evolution elsewhere in the cosmos and that we are not alone. Cosmologist Carl Sagan once said, “If ever we received a single message from space, that would establish the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.” The assumptions surrounding SETI demonstrate that the possibility of the existence of an unknown intelligent agency is an acceptable scientific hypothesis, even if it is speculative. The operative word is “message” because messages possess information content. What scientists are looking for is information (message) content in the radio signals being received. The 1997 movie Contact developed this theme in an entertaining fashion.

One of the SETI experiments is to transmit a radio signal into space containing information in the form of a factorable mathematical number.[iii] The hope is that if an intelligent recipient is contacted, he, she or it would be able to “speak” the assumed universal language of mathematics and factor the number and transmit the answer back to earth. The SETI community considers any natural mechanism that is able to generate the factors of the transmitted number to be so improbable (impossible) that were it to occur it would be hailed as proof of intelligent agency.

The information content of life

The information content in the simple factoring problem shown in the footnote is trivial when compared to the information content contained in life’s molecules. The genetic coding found in a single molecule of DNA has the information content of an entire encyclopedia. How did the information content in the DNA molecule come into being? The most reasonable hypothesis is that some sort of intelligent agency was responsible for putting it there. We don’t need to identify the source or name of the intelligent agent right away, but we can scientifically conclude with high confidence that life came into being by a “Who” and not a “what.”

The DNA Code – could it be created by chance?

Even though is was popular from Darwin’s day to the end of the 20th century to account for the specified complexity of the DNA code by chance, today these theories have all been completely rejected. It would be like monkeys authoring Shakespeare on a computer. Not a chance! Why? Because chance processes do not give rise to complex, specified information. One doesn’t toss a billion Scrabble pieces up into the air and find that they land in a previously specified pattern, such as one of the world’s best novels. It is no longer even a matter of small probability, or having infinite time, it is now a matter that in principle, chance events can not create specified complex information. As a result, virtually all origin-of-life researchers today have abandoned theories based on the chance assembly of the first living molecule and the living cell.

The DNA Code – could it be created by natural law?

A second possibility is that the DNA code can be accounted for by some law of nature. This is the most recent view among many scientists – life and its DNA code arose by natural forces that are contained within the matter itself. The most widely used graduate textbook expounding this theory has been, Biochemical Predestination, which theorizes that there are forces within matter itself that ”predestines” the chemical compounds to line up in just the right sequence to create the code. For well over 30 years the authors of the text have been involved in experimentation to test this theory. The result has been that all experimentation has failed. Why? Because natural laws in principle do not produce codes. Natural laws only produce results that are regular (e.g., the sun coming up and going down every day); repeatable (e.g., every time I throw the ball up in the air it comes down); and predictable (e.g., I bet tomorrow the sun will come up and I’ll be able to play ball). Codes (information), on the other hand are not regular; not repeatable; and not predictable -- that’s why they are called “codes;” there is a certain mystery about them. One cannot develop Hamlet by a formula, e.g., by “macro” in a computer program -- each letter and sequence has to be pre-specified by the programmer or wordsmith.[iv]

The same is true of the DNA code. Each cell in our bodies contains DNA codes that would fill more that the 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. There are no laws that would cause the “letters” in the DNA code to line up in the particular way they do in a living cell. In principle, law-like processes do not generate the high-information content that we find in the DNA code.

The DNA Code – could it be created by design?

The only remaining possibility is that the DNA code arose by design. Does the DNA code fit the criteria for design? Even according to Richard Dawkins, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” And, “Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.” Paul Davies, professor of mathematical physics and noted author, writes that DNA is a “genetic databank that transmits information using the genetic code.” He says that scientists who are still attempting to find a natural law solution to the genetic code are addressing the question at “the wrong conceptual level.” Instead of chance or natural law producing the DNA code, what we find is that DNA is neither random (chance) nor regular (law). Rather it exhibits “specified complexity” which is the hallmark of design. Modern genetics seems to be telling us that life is the product of a designer.

What is intelligent agency?

Whenever we recognize a sequence of meaningful symbols (e.g., handwriting) we assume it is the handiwork of an intelligent agent. Molecular biology should lead us to conclude that the “messages” “encoded” in the DNA of a living organism must have originated with an intelligent agent. Yet, this obvious theory is never postulated by evolutionary science. The fact is this self-evident conclusion is not even allowed to be postulated by the current scientific establishment. Why should the establishment have the power to prevent one from acknowledging evidence for intelligent agency when it is a perfectly acceptable scientific hypothesis? It is no less than prejudice, bias, and dogmatism that prevent a hypothesis such as “intelligent agency” from being seriously considered. Is the evolutionary biologist concerned that such evidence might lead to scientific evidence for the God-hypothesis? Naturalistic science does not have a monopoly on knowledge. G. K. Chesterton once observed, “We don't know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.” Science must be open to pursue truth no matter where it may lead, even intelligent agency. Science does not know enough to reject Intelligent Design out of hand.

Can we scientifically discover intelligent agency?

Yes! We do it every day in our experience with the natural world. We do it by inferring design from observational data. Just by using common sense we can know if an event or object originated by purposeful, premeditated behavior; or by happenstance. At the scene of a car accident we might ask, “Was the hit-and-run an accident or was it premeditated murder?” We are able to decide by the evidence. We can look at Mt. Rushmore and Mt. Everest and conclude that the first was designed by intelligent agency, and the second by natural forces. Whole industries have been developed based on knowing the difference between chance and design, e.g., insurance companies, patent offices, detective agencies. Observation is a fundamental foundation of science and it tells us that natural processes do not give rise to complex structures that contain high information content -- be it Mt. Rushmore, a message in the sand such as ‘Romeo loves Juliet”, or a living cell. Natural processes alone cannot explain the exceptionally high level of design (information content) of these entities.

Living systems possess “information content”

Life consists not just of matter and energy, but of matter, energy and information. Information is not reducible to matter and energy alone. It is a different kind of “stuff” altogether. A theory of life has to explain, not just the origin of the matter, but also the independent origin of its information content. Complex specified information of the kind found in a book; or in the DNA sequence of a biological cell; cannot be produced by chance, or solely at the direction of physical and chemical laws.

Sometimes natural entities, such as a snowflake, are given as examples of structures with complex specified information content that are formed by natural processes. Snowflakes and other apparently complex natural structures, however, are not good examples. A snowflake has low information content because it contains a highly repetitive order. Anything with repetitive order has low information content, even if it is unique. The natural laws that form the snowflake actually prevent more complex ordering (information content) from emerging. As one of my professors, Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith[v] was fond of saying, “Information consists of surprise (non-predictable) effects.” Anything with highly repetitive order has predictable information content, not surprise effects. The distinction between the information content of a snowflake (low information content) and something with a lot of surprise effects, like a DNA molecule (high information content), is like the difference between the Shakespearean play Romeo and Juliet and a book the same size containing the phrase, “Romeo and Juliet,” repeated 100,000 times. There is little information content in the latter, even though it is titled the same and contains the same number of words as the play.

If the information content in a single strand of DNA were written out in words it would fill an entire encyclopedia – and it would be unique content, i.e., high information content. A single cell contains millions of strands of DNA, and a single human body contains hundreds of trillions of cells. Are natural causes capable of producing such design and information content? Absolutely not! That would be tantamount to going to the beach and finding the phrase “Romeo and Juliet” (quotes, fonts and all!) formed by the random interaction of the waves on the grains of sand. Or, a whole Shakespearean play suddenly appearing on your Internet home page “authored” by a million networked computer hackers randomly accessing your website![vi] This is beyond the bounds of sensibility. When we find a complex message with high information content coded into the DNA of a cell, it is most reasonable to conclude that an intelligent agent coded that message. At minimum, it certainly is a reasonable scientific theory. And, for the theory it is reasonable to conclude that an “intelligence” is the causing mechanism.

Natural selection has no power to create “complex information”

Evolutionary evangelist Richard Dawkins attributes creative power and intelligent agency to the mechanism of natural selection. To illustrate, in his book The Blind Watchmaker,[vii] Dawkins demonstrates how a meaningful text like, ”ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” from Hamlet can be obtained in a rather short time by a computer program generating random letters from the alphabet. In the scenario, Dawkins generates random letters from the alphabet and “keeps” every letter that fits into the appropriate letter position, and “rejects” every letter that doesn’t. It is sort of like what happens on the TV program Wheel of Fortune. In not too long a time the phrase, M E T H I N K S I T I S L I K E A W E A S E L, appears, filling in the blanks. Dawkins’ readers don’t seem to understand that this is just a trick. All it illustrates is that it was necessary from the beginning for an intelligent agent (Dawkins or Vanna White) to have a target phrase in mind. That person acts as an intelligent agent to sort through the letters generated. It is not a “creative power” by the random number generator that does it. The intelligent agent sorts through the random generation of letters and decides which ones to keep and where to put them. If anything, this is an illustration of the mechanism of intelligent agency at work; not of chance and natural selection. The computer program generates letters by chance, but the person sorting through the letters is the intelligent agent who “knows” which letters to select and where they belong. Chance and natural selection have no creative power of their own.

Can we postulate a scientific test to detect transcendent Intelligent Agency?

If transcendent intelligent design were discernable on scientific grounds, theists would be able to insist that there is a scientific basis for postulating the God-hypothesis. Such a scientific test would have to demonstrate that a hypothetical Intelligent Agent surpasses, in actuality and in principle, the intelligence of any possible finite rational agent in the universe. William Dembski has postulated such a test.[viii]

If ever a SETI communication were received that solved a problem that was not capable of being solved (even in principle) by a finite intelligence, but whose solution was verifiable -- that would do it. There are examples of such problems in computer science; they are called oracles. One such oracle is to factor a thousand-digit number into its smallest possible factors (i.e., its prime factors). If a solution (i.e., the primes of a thousand digit number) were proposed, it could be either verified or falsified simply by multiplying the proposed factors together. If the result matched the given original number, then the proposed answer is verified. This oracle cannot be solvable directly by mathematics. It cannot even be solved by computerized trial and error – it is too complex. In fact, its solution is beyond the computational capability of all the possible computing resources in the entire universe! Therefore, if the proposed oracle were solved in a received SETI communication, we would have to reject “randomness and chance” as possible mechanisms since otherwise would violate every conceivable canon of statistical reasoning. Chance or luck is simply not plausible, even in principle. If the received solution was verified, one would have to conclude that it was performed by a super-intelligent (transcendent) agent. Science would be driven to the conclusion that a “super-natural” Intelligence Agent was the solver of the problem. We could not avoid postulating that the Intelligence Agent is transcendent.

A proposed test for discovering a transcendent Intelligent Agent

The mathematical problem 37 x 51= 1961 is easily solvable left-to-right by simple multiplication, or right-to-left by trial and error factoring. The 4-digit result (1961) has two factors (37 and 51).

As you increase the number of digits of the “result” from four digits to a thousand digits the problem becomes unsolvable in the “factoring” (trial and error) direction. There would be practically an infinite number of trials required to find the “factors,” even by infinitely powerful computers. The problem is readily solvable, however, in the “multiplication” direction. If a set of numbers were proposed as the prime factors, one simply multiplies the proposed factors together to verify that the product is the original thousand digit number. However, to factor a thousand-digit number into its primes requires much more that 10¹⁵⁰ calculations. There are not enough computing resources in the entire universe to make that number of calculations. If we were to build the fastest possible computer imaginable we could do no better than use every elementary particle in the universe (10⁸⁰) as a memory bit, and run it at the maximum possible theoretical clock speed that matter can be switched (10⁴⁵ cycles per second). And, if we let this fantasy computer calculate for a length of time billions of times longer than the universe has existed or is expected to exist (say 10²⁴ seconds), at the end of its run-time, the computer would still not have accomplished 10¹⁵⁰ calculations.

The information content of living things far exceeds that of the proposed oracle. Therefore, we can legitimately infer transcendent intelligent agency as the source of the information content. Likewise, we can scientifically conclude the legitimacy of inferring transcendent intelligent agency as the source of the information content within living systems. Only pre-existing bias keeps Intelligent Design out of the discussion.

Is naturalistic science scientifically stultifying?

The problem of not seeing intelligent design in the cosmos doesn’t lie with the evidence, it lies with the method of inquiry. Naturalism, the philosophical basis of modern science, arbitrarily excludes Intelligent Design from rational consideration. Evolutionary science demands that only naturalistic explanations be allowed. Science seems to be concerned that giving any room for consideration to a transcendent intelligent agent would undermine legitimate inquiry and breed superstition in its place. Ian Barbour said,[ix] “We would submit that it is scientifically stultifying to say of any puzzling phenomenon that it is ‘incapable of scientific explanation’ for such an attitude would undercut the motivation for inquiry … [and] also lead to another form of the ‘God of the gaps’ (explanations) to cover the ignorance of what may later be shown to have natural causes.” C. A. Coulson put it another way,[x] “When we come to the scientific unknown, our correct policy is not to rejoice because we have found God; it is to become better scientists.” Such attitudes close down consideration of intelligent agency from the start. This is hardly an intellectually unbiased environment. To this way of thinking, any appeal to intelligent agency is not just a violation of scientific dogma but a descent into rank superstition. However, this thinking confuses theories of intelligent agency that arise because we have exhausted the full range of natural causes with, “appeals to God” that mask our ignorance. Scientists must (and do) know that the resources of the universe are limited and exhaustible. At some point naturalistic explanations lose their monopoly as the only legitimate explanatory strategy. Science seldom discusses these limitations, hence, naturalism ends up perpetuating a prejudice that hinders inquiry. Naturalism has been extremely successful in fostering the myth that its explanations are intrinsically superior to non-naturalistic explanations. Actually, it is naturalism’s self-righteous attitude that is limiting and destructive to the pursuit of knowledge, not Intelligent Design.

Suppose God really exists and He does things in the world; and He actually intends for us to know about Him. Naturalism would be blocking the way of inquiry and would be “scientifically stultifying.” Any naturalistic explanation of God’s acts of creation would be incorrect and lead us to wrong conclusions.

What evidence makes it reasonable to conclude “intelligent design” occurred?

Our current understanding of the creation of the universe and of living systems is a good place to start. According to astrophysicists, the universe arose out of nothing a finite time in the past. One of the most fundamental postulates of science is that it is a violation of all natural law for effects to occur without a cause. Therefore, it is reasonable to postulate a cause for the creation of the universe which is beyond (transcends) the universe, i.e., a transcendent Creator who is self-existent (uncaused) and is the initial cause of all things.

Biochemists have discovered that living organisms are irreducibly complex systems made up of living cells that are themselves irreducibly complex systems. Living systems appear to be designed. It should be an affront to the scientific community to see the incredible design of living systems and not be able to infer a designer. If Richard Dawkins can infer a blind (or unconscious?) watchmaker, it is just as reasonable (or perhaps more so) to infer an intelligent designer. I am not advocating censoring Mr. Dawkins’ hypothesis. I am advocating allowing for the scientific consideration of Intelligent Design. Either hypothesis should be allowed to stand or fall on its own merit since neither is totally provable, nor falsifiable. The evidence more conclusively shows that cells are living molecular structures which could not possibly have arisen by the chance interaction of non-living molecules. It is more scientifically reasonable to postulate that living molecular machines that are the result of design. There are no other options. Either something is designed or it isn’t!

Famous British atheistic philosophers look at the evidence for ID

Bertrand Russell stated in his book, Why I Am Not a Christian, that if upon dying he were in the presence of God and asked why he hadn’t believed he would simply answer, “not enough evidence.” Many atheists and agnostics consider God, if He exists at all, too secretive (or perhaps indifferent) to give us convincing proofs of his existence -- “God shouldn’t act like that.” Woody Allen amusingly put it this way, “If only God would give me some clear sign; like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.” Since “clear” signs (to them) are not available, God does not exist; or He is asleep or doesn’t care. In any case, God isn’t relevant to the skeptic. One thing the skeptic never considers however: If God exists, then it is not important what he thinks about God, it is only important what God thinks of him! The skeptic better hope, with all fingers and toes crossed, that he or she is right.

After decades of having been a leading champion of atheism, British philosophy professor Anthony Flew concluded at age 81 (he became an atheist at 15) that some sort of intelligence must have created the universe. In an AP news release of Dec. 9, 2004, Flew said that “It (God) could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and purpose.” He made his conclusion on the basis of scientific evidence: that a super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature. He said his current ideas have some similarities with American “intelligent design” theorists. Flew makes his revelation known in a new video, Has Science Discovered God? For those who worry that a belief in Intelligent Design will unleash Biblical Fundamentalism on the scientific panorama, Flew also says, “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots; cosmic Saddam Husseins!”

Why isn’t the evidence for design “resoundingly obvious” to everyone?

If God exists, why is he so subtle? If a Creator exists, surely He would spare no pain in making Himself evident, some say. “Unless the Creator hits me with a sledgehammer, I will remain unconvinced,” the skeptic says. Since God does not “hit us with sledgehammers,” He must not exist. No evidence of design is ever judged sufficient to implicate the designer. Of course, this view removes all possibility that God might just want to be subtle in His design. Historically, science has judged the world a subtle place in which inquiry succeeds only through labor, creative insight, and faith in its philosophical presuppositions. The scientific discovery process is not a matter of seeing the obvious right away. Quite the contrary, the scientific enterprise is a very creative piece of detective work, discovering how the cosmos works from very limited information. The proper course of inquiry should not be to prejudge the evidence against design, but rather consider what evidence there is for design; and ask if it makes sense. It is arrogant and dogmatic to assume that a designer must be ostentatious and put “designer labels” on everything the way a worldly designer would do. Perhaps the Deity’s humility reveals something about His character? Perhaps God is so much higher (ontologically speaking) than we, that for Him to be ostentatious with evidence trivializes his transcendence? That’s what the Christian conception of God claims in the Bible. I don’t want a God who is so insecure that He must do parlor tricks to get people’s attention. Isn’t the creation evidence enough? God says that the creation itself gives sufficient evidence for anybody (even a child) to “know” that the Creator exists. Those who disbelieve after thoughtfully considering the creation do so willfully, not because the evidence is insufficient.

The Anthropic Principle

As previously discussed, astrophysics continues to find evidence for God through the subtleties of the creation as well as the dramatic events (such as the creation of the universe via a big bang). Scientists have discovered that life can exist only in an extremely narrow range of physical conditions and constants (e.g., temperature range, distance from the sun, size of the moon, position of the solar system within the Milky Way, etc.), which is a statistical impossibility to occur by chance. These findings are known as the Anthropic Principle. Each year scientists discover additional life variables that, if not precisely tuned, would destroy (not support) life. Scientists are amazed at the incredible fine-tuning of the universe. British astrophysicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have calculated that the probability that the variables associated with the Anthropic Principle could have arisen by chance is one chance in 10 to the power of 10¹²³! This is a number so incredibly small that it is unintelligible to propose a chance hypothesis. Agnostic scientists are not only without naturalistic theories to propose, they are confronted with compelling scientific evidence for intelligent design of the universe as well as for life in it.

The arguments against Intelligent Design

One of the fundamental arguments against intelligent design by an all-powerful God is that the world is so “imperfect.” That is, living systems have too many “design flaws,” e.g., the vestigial human appendix apparently doesn’t have a purpose; neither does “junk DNA” nor the Panda’s thumb (5 fingers and a non-opposable thumb at the wrist), etc. An omniscient and omnipotent Designer would have done it differently, the argument goes. But that is just a “science-of-the-gaps” argument. New discoveries, in fact, keep filling in the “gaps” – the human appendix is now known to have a biological function; junk DNA may not be junk after all; and the location of the Panda’s thumb in her wrist has been found to assist her in gathering bamboo.

The critic assumes that the goal of the designer was “engineering excellence” as defined by a human engineer. The “resource-limited” critic sets himself up as judge of the “resource-unlimited” God. There are many other conceivable and noble goals that an omnipotent Creator might have had in mind -- for one: built-in obsolescence. The Creator tells us that His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8, 9). At an art gallery, one sees all forms of creative expression that may be indiscernible to a critic who has a predetermined evaluative mechanism. The critic may assume that he or she knows the mind of the artist, but the critic is just asserting an opinion. Only the artist knows his or her original intention and he or she may not always choose to communicate it. In the case of the God of the Bible – He is the Great Artist as well as the Great Engineer.

The “problem of evil”[xi] is another fundamental argument against intelligent design by an intelligent God. Although this is an extremely important question, it is beside the point when discussing what evidence exists for design. The “argument from evil” and the Christian’s view of man’s “free will” are very relevant to the discussion, but only after God as an Intelligent Designer can be postulated. The question can then move to, “What kind of God would allow evil and suffering in the world?” This argument shouldn’t divert one before the issue of the possibility of an Intelligent Agent is settled.

The Explanatory Filter for determining Intelligent Design

Henry Schaeffer III, one of the world’s most distinguished physical scientists, says that “William Dembski is perhaps the very brightest of a new generation of scholars willing to challenge the most sacred 20th century intellectual idol – the unproven notion that all of life can be explained in terms of natural selection and mutations.” In his books, Intelligent Design, (InterVaristy Press, 1999), and The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998), Dembski develops the mathematical theory -- the “Explanatory Filter” -- necessary to be able to make a scientific inference of Intelligent Design.

The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents the ordinary human practice of sorting through information to attribute to an object or an event: (1) regularity -- natural law or formula, (2) chance, or (3) design. These are our only options. To infer design one conceptually steps through an “explanatory filter” as shown in the following figure. This process can apply to scientifically and logically reasoning through the recognition of design. It can apply to everyday personal decision making. It can apply in our legal system where courts can sentence people to the death penalty. Stepping through the decision-making process established by the Explanatory Filter applies to entire disciplines and industries that depend on “inferring design” –

Archaeologists deciphering ancient inscriptions

The copyright and patent office identifying theft of intellectual property

Insurance companies keeping themselves from getting ripped off

Detectives employing circumstantial evidence to prosecute criminals (case in point -- the November, 2004 Scott Peterson murder trial where all the evidence is circumstantial)
Forensic scientists deducing who was at the scene of a crime

Skeptics debunking the claims of parapsychologists

Researchers uncovering data falsification

Scientists in the SETI program attempting to detect extraterrestrial intelligences (remember the movie Contact?)

Statisticians and computer scientists distinguishing random from non-random strings of digits

In order to conclude the “design” of an object or an event three facts must be established:

Contingency – That is, that there are no natural laws or algorithms that would explain it. The object or event in question is not the result of an automatically pre-determined and therefore unintelligent process.

Complexity – One must ensure that the object or event is not so simple that it can be readily explained by chance. It must have high complexity, i.e., a very small probability of occurrence.

Specification – One must ensure that the complex object or event fits an independent specified pattern that is characteristic of intelligence, i.e. it is not a pattern one is imposing, but it is a pattern already in existence made by an independent and objective intelligent source.

If the object or the event is both highly complex (i.e., it is improbable) and fits an independently specified recognizable pattern, then it possesses “specified complexity” which determines that it has been “designed” and possesses high information content.

This is a reliable criterion for detecting design strictly from the observational features of the world. Design has compelling statistical justification belonging to the world of science, not to the world of metaphysics and theology as ID’s critics maintain.

The process to achieve a conclusion of design is shown in the following figure.

Complex Specified Information (CSI)

The great myth of evolutionary biology is that the high “information content” required of a biological system can be “obtained on the cheap” without recourse to intelligence. As we have discussed in a previous lesson, information is not reducible to matter and energy alone. It is a different kind of stuff altogether. High information content can only be obtained by processing through the criteria shown in the Explanatory Filter.

First, the information must be contingent, i.e., it is not the result of natural law or formula, but dependent on some cause. Next, it must be complex, i.e., it must have a small probability of occurrence. And finally, it must be specified, i.e., it must conform to an independent and pre-existing pattern that is recognizable. Contingent information that is both complex and specified is called “CSI” (complex specified information). CSI is rapidly becoming a well developed scientific area of research, not just in biology but in all areas of science. It has very practical applications in the information age in which we live. For example, the specified complexity of our credit card numbers assure that a thief cannot randomly pick a number and have it turn out to be valid.

Evolutionary biology is just beginning to realize that it needs to be re-conceptualized in terms of information theory. The Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection -- being a trial-and-error process in which mutation supplies the error and selection the trial -- is not capable of generating CSI. The only known source for generating CSI is intelligence!

Intelligent Design will liberate scientific inquiry – and society!

Many scientists remain unconvinced about the credibility of Intelligent Design being a legitimate scientific enterprise. They say – “So what?” if we have a reliable criterion for detecting design, and “So what?” if that criterion tells us that biological systems are designed. How is looking at a biological system and inferring design any better than shrugging our shoulders and saying “God did it?” Their fear is that design cannot help but stifle scientific inquiry.

On the contrary, Intelligent Design will foster scientific inquiry whereas traditional evolutionary theory stifles it. Consider “junk DNA,” for example. Implicit in this term is the evolutionary view that the genome has been cobbled together through chance and natural selection so that a lot of useless (junk) DNA is to be expected. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we would expect DNA to exhibit function. Design encourages scientists to look for function whereas evolution discourages it. Consider “vestigial organs” such as the human appendix or coccyx (tail bone). According to evolutionary theory, certain organs are no longer of selective benefit. Design, however, encourages scientists to look for function, whereas evolution discourages it. The appendix and coccyx are now both known to be functional body parts. Reinstating design within science can only enrich science as design raises a whole new set of research questions. Once we know something is designed, we will want to know how it was produced; what purpose it has; and how optimal the design is?

Intelligent Design will also better society. Consider, for example, that design implies constraints. Transgress those constraints and the object functions poorly or breaks. We can discover what works and doesn’t work just by observing what happens when the apparent boundaries are pushed. This research will provide understanding in societal ethics, for example, as well as in science. What behaviors of society promote health? Crossing which boundaries will degenerate a society? By avoiding design, science has for too long operated with an inadequate set of conceptual categories – particularly in our information age, and especially now when design is empirically detectable. In the past we have had a constricted vision of reality, skewing not only how science understands the world, but also understanding ourselves. Evolutionary psychology, for example, justifies everything from infanticide to adultery and is just one symptom of this inadequate conception of science. Barring design from science distorts science, making it a mouthpiece for naturalism instead of a search for truth. To reinstate design within science is to liberate science -- freeing it from restrictions that were arbitrarily spawned by Darwinism and today has become intolerable.

Christian response

Romans 1 and 2 inform us that the “Intelligent Designer” is a Self-existent, eternal, all-powerful Being exists who is transcendent to the material universe. One of the most important evidences of this Being’s existence is the creation itself. Nothing comes from nothing. Only a Being who is eternally self-existent can make a (material) something exist at a particular Self-willed “time.” The Bible says that this is self-evident, even to the smallest child. Since God is the Creator, He is Sovereign over all things, including His created creatures. Hence, He is the Lawgiver (both physical and moral) -- He makes the rules. All this, Scripture says, is “clearly seen” by looking outwardly at the expanse and fine-tuning of the created universe, and the specified complexity of living organism, as well as inwardly to the moral law “written on our hearts.” God’s existence is “clearly evident” to the created creatures, but most “willfully reject” acknowledging God and in doing so their thinking becomes futile and foolish. Because of mankind’s rejection of God, He has been “given us over to a depraved mind.” Man is “without excuse” for not discerning God directly from the creation and from his own conscience. Evil and suffering are the consequences of our free and our willful rejection of God. One day God, through Jesus Christ, will judge each and every person who ever lived. All this is summarized in the Romans 1:18-2:16:

…mankind suppresses the truth (about God) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions … And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful … (mankind) shows the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when … God will judge the secrets of mankind through Jesus Christ.

Creation and design as taught in the Bible, is not only a worthy hypothesis, it is also a worthy ethical assumption. Man’s moral condition and ultimate fate, Scripture says, is a direct result of his willfully choosing to have faith in things other than God.

------

[i] The Drake equation can be used to estimate the number of advanced alien civilizations in the Milky Way whose radio emissions are detectable. Obviously the equation has yet to produce any tangible results and the formula is highly debatable. But admirers laud it as a stimulus to scholarly discussion and a way to get people thinking about what it takes to create and find life in the universe.
[ii] During the hearings, Senator William Proxmire quipped that the money would be better spent trying to find intelligent life inside the Beltway!
[iii] “Factoring” is the reverse mathematical operation of multiplication. In the expression 37 x 51= 1961, the operation “37 times 51” is called multiplication; 1961 is called the “result.” Conversely, the “factors” of 1961 are 37 and 51. “Prime factors” (or “primes”) are the smallest possible factors of a given number. For example, 4, 12, 21 are not prime factors of any number because they can be further factored into smaller factors (i.e., 4 = 2 x 2; 12 = 2 x 2 x 3; 21 = 7 x 3). However, 2, 3, 7, 11 … are prime factors because they cannot be factored any further. In the example above, 37 and 51 are the “primes” of 1961 since they cannot be factored any further.
[iv] Dean Kenyon, co-author of Biochemical Predestination has now repudiated his own theory and has become a proponent of Intelligent Design.
[v] The late A. E. Wilder-Smith was a world renowned expert in origin-of-life studies and author of over 50 scientific publications. He held three earned doctorate degrees in science from prestigious European universities.
[vi] This is an updated metaphor of the million monkeys randomly banging away on typewriters and producing Hamlet. Just think the “million-and-first” monkey would contribute to the play!
[vii] The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, (W. W. Norton, 1986).
[viii] This example adapted from Dembski’s essay in The Creation Hypothesis, J. P. Moreland, editor, (1994).
[ix] Issues in Science and Religion, (London: SCM Press, 1966)
[x] Science and Religion: A Changing Relationship, (Cambridge University Press, 1955).
[xi] In theology this is called theodicy -- an attempt to justify the ways of God to man. The issue of the existence of God and of evil is a very important matter to one considering the claims of any religion. He or she wants to know if that religion commits one to a belief in a God who is evil, or who fails to do good; or is incapable of overcoming evil in the world.

2005-01-23T20:09:00.000-08:00

Lesson 7 – The Origin of the Species: Part II

Darwinian Evolution of the Cell

For you created my innermost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
- Psalm 139: 13, 14

We are very confident that strong selection for running – which came at the expense of the historical ability to live in trees – was instrumental in the origin of the modern human body form.
- Dennis Bramble, Biology Professor, University of Utah (statement regarding his article in Nature, 11/18/04)

Darwin on Darwinism

In his magnum opus, the Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” We will subject Darwinism to his own test and take for our object of study the fundamental building block of life -- the cell. Can it be shown that the cell could develop gradually by Darwin’s proposed mechanism -- variation and natural selection? The evidence for evolution is supposedly overwhelming so we will check it out in this lesson. If the evidence is not plausible for the cell, then Darwin’s theory breaks down from the start. Darwinian evangelist Richard Dawkins admits, “If (evolution) is not gradual...it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness ... we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.”[i]

Biochemistry[ii]

Biochemistry is a relatively new science born in the early 1950’s. It is actually a group of sciences that investigate life at the molecular level. It includes, informs, and has spawned disciplines such as molecular genetics, embryology, cell physiology and genomics. These sciences have revealed much about how the basic building block of life -- the cell -- operates. Cells are molecular machines (or more appropriately, complex automated manufacturing factories), which have one additional and remarkable capability -- they can replicate (reproduce) themselves!

The Cell

The cell is the basic unit of living matter of all organisms -- plant and animal. It contains everything necessary for an organism to survive -- performing directed and pre-programmed work --

stores and retrieves information

builds cellular infrastructure

produces and processes energy

replicates itself

The fundamental molecules within the cell are:

DNA – stores the “blueprints” for the construction of life molecules

mRNA (“messenger” RNA) – carries a copy of the “blueprints” from the DNA to the building site of the proteins

PROTEIN – constructs and repairs the living system it is in from the “blueprint” copy.

Note the repeated use of the term “blueprint” in describing the function of the fundamental molecules of the cell. The blueprints are specified instructions which direct and enable the cells to carry-out their function. How did these blueprints originate? Are they the product of random undirected forces as the evolutionist maintains, or are they the product of intelligent design? Can we ever know?

The structure and building blocks of the cell

In the last century, science has given us incredible instruments and tools for studying the living cell. To Darwin and his early followers the cell was just a microscopic “blob” of organic substance[iii] -- a “black box.”[iv] These new instruments and the science of Biochemistry have opened up this remarkable black-box (the cell) to find nothing short of an incredible self-running, self-replicating computerized organic manufacturing plant. If Darwinian evolution is true, then it must account for the molecular structure of the most fundamental part of this manufacturing plant --- the cell. In this lesson we will see that Darwinian evolution does not, and in fact, can not. We will use Darwin’s own criterion to show that evolution cannot account for the development of the cell by “numerous, successive, slight modifications.”

Let’s peek inside the living CELL and the process by which it builds PROTEINS from the genetic assembly instructions contained in the DNA within its nucleus.

The cell is the fundamental unit of life. The human body is composed of hundreds of trillions of cells. The defining features of the CELL are, (1) its membrane which divides the outside world from the interior of the cell, and (2) its nucleus which contains its DNA.[v]

Irreducibly complex systems

What type of system can not be formed by “numerous successive, slight modifications,” i.e. a Darwinian-derived system? Answer? -- an irreducibly complex system. Something as simple as a mousetrap is an irreducibly complex system. For it to function as a mousetrap it must be fully integrated. A fully integrated system is composed of many individual parts, all of which when integrated together contribute to its intended function. No part of a mousetrap can be missing for it to do its job; not one. And, each part must be available at the exact time needed to function. Each part must be minimally functional (not too long nor short, not too hard nor soft, etc.) to accomplish its task. Each part must be precisely “machined” to within certain tolerances or it will not work, even if all the parts are present.

Biochemistry has demonstrated that any biological apparatus involving a cell or cell system is an intricate web of many different, identifiable irreducibly complex systems. Cells are not just blobs of substance as thought in Darwin’s day. A typical cell contains thousands and thousands of different kinds of proteins and other more complex units. Proteins are made by chemically stitching together amino acids into a molecular chain. The cell’s work requires streams of proteins to function harmoniously together with each protein carrying out previously specified tasks. The instructions for this work are specified by a “blueprint” contained in the DNA molecules and communicated to the protein by messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules. For Darwinian evolution to be true it must provide an explanation for how the cell originates and carries out these functions by chance variation and natural selection. What biochemistry shows is that the cell is an irreducibly complex system whose origin and function can not be explained by Darwinian evolution.

The probability of cell assembly by random processes

In previous lessons we have shown that the origin of life by the chance assembly of chemical bonds within the simplest living cell is literally impossible.[vi] The incredibly complex molecules that make up the cell: DNA, RNA and proteins are all interdependent. For life to have originated by naturalistic processes, all three kinds of molecules would have to emerge spontaneously and simultaneously from inorganic molecules. Even the most optimistic of evolutionists now agree that the chance appearance of these incredibly irreducible complex molecules, at precisely the right time and place, is beyond the realm of natural possibility. Evolutionists, however, based on their philosophical presupposition that evolution must be true, continue to cling to “chance plus natural selection” as the mechanism for the origin of life so they continue to construct naturalistic theories[vii] that supposedly fill-in the gaps. Evolution is based on an ideology desperate to find a scientific foundation. This can be demonstrated by doing a scientific literature search for an explanation of the mechanism by which cell evolution occurs.

The scientific literature on the subject

Professor Russell Doolittle is a professor of Biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry at Harvard and is a world recognized expert in protein chemistry, molecular evolution, and origin of life research. His doctoral thesis on cell function was entitled, The Comparative Biochemistry of Blood Coagulation. He has written extensively in these fields. In his essay, Probability and the Origin of Life, which appears in the book Scientists Confront Creationism, Dr. Doolittle says that the state of knowledge of cell evolution is “well understood” and that Christian critics are “misguided” in their opposition to it. He concludes, “With this essay I have tried to show that the arguments that are raised about the improbability of the origin of life, particularly those concerning functional proteins, are often naive and misdirected.... the next time you hear creationists railing against the ‘impossibility’ of making a particular protein... you can smile wryly and know that they are nowhere near a consideration of the real issues.” You judge for yourself from the following if Dr. Doolittle makes a good case that cell evolution is well understood.

In 1993, Doolittle wrote an article on how the complex and delicately balanced cellular process of blood clotting (his doctoral specialty) evolved. It appeared in the journal, Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Professor Doolittle explains: Blood clotting is a delicately balanced phenomenon involving [complex chemistry] ...Various metaphors can be applied to its step-by-step evolution ... My favorite is the yin and yang.” He continues to develop the metaphor of the masculine principle (yang) and the feminine principle (yin). “Their marriage yields the true essence of all things ... consider the following yin and yang scenario for the evolution of vertebrate clotting. I have arbitrarily designated the enzymes...as the yang, and the non-enzymes as the yin.” Dr. Doolittle never cites any causative factors in this article. He concludes with, tissue factors “appear,” fibrinogen “is born,” antiplasmin “arises,” TPA “springs forth,” and cross-linking proteins are “unleashed.” What exactly, Dr. Behe asks, is causing all this “being born,” “springing forth,” and “unleashing?” Doolittle cites no causative factors. He obviously is engaging in philosophical speculation, which would be perfectly all right if it wasn’t being put forth as science. If I were an evolutionist, his analysis would not motivate me to: “smile wryly and know that they (the creationists) are nowhere near a consideration of the real issues.”

When legitimate scientific questions go unanswered, especially in a scientific journal, we have left science and entered the realm of philosophical speculation. Yin and yang metaphors are taken from Eastern religion. (As an aside, can you imagine a biblical metaphor getting published in a journal like Thrombosis and Haemostasis?) Doolittle’s “explanation” acknowledges that blood clotting is an irreducibly complex system. His bottom-line is that clusters of proteins have to function in a specific sequence all at one time. Therefore, we are left with postulating a “miracle” which creates all the right proteins by chance at precisely the right time. Doolittle’s audience is the leaders in blood clotting research. They know the state of the art. Yet, the article does not explain scientifically how clotting might have originated and subsequently evolved, even though that is its stated purpose. Instead he tells a “Just So” story. The fact is that no one on earth has the vaguest idea how any complex cellular process (such as blood coagulation) came to be or works. Paradigms of staggering complexity underlie almost all bodily processes. Faced with such complexity, Darwinian evolutionary theory falls totally silent and is totally impotent in its explanatory power.

Publish or perish

The Journal of Molecular Evolution began as a publication in 1971. It is devoted exclusively to research aimed at explaining how life at the molecular level came into being. Over 50 of the top names in the field have been on its editorial staff -- many in this prestigious group are members of The National Academy of Sciences. Each monthly issue contains a dozen or so scientific papers covering various aspects of molecular evolution. Dr. Behe found that none of the papers published in JME (over its entire history) has ever proposed any details by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced by Darwinian evolution. No one even asks those kinds of questions let alone attempts to answer them! This is very strong evidence that Darwinian evolution is an inadequate framework for understanding the origins of complex biochemical systems. Attempts to explain the evolution of irreducibly complex biochemical systems -- from simple “mousetraps” to complex blood-clotting systems -- by the gradualistic evolutionary route have been incoherent. No scientific journal publishes patently incoherent papers, so entries asking detailed questions of biological evolution at the cell level are not to be found.

Dr. Behe searched scores of other journals devoted to biochemical research, including the prestigious Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences. He did find some 400 papers concerned with molecular evolution, but not one paper was found offering any explanations. He next explored libraries around the world. “Surely,” he said, “there would be a book that tells me how specific biochemical structures came to be.” A computer search of the library catalogs showed there is no such work, even though there are inviting titles such as, The Causes of Molecular Evolution, and Evolution at the Molecular Level, among others. In fact, there has never been a meeting, a book, or a paper on the details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems! Why then is Darwinian evolution still credible with so many biochemists? Because, they have been taught in their scientific training that Darwinian evolution is true. Students learn by indoctrination in the classroom, in their textbooks, in the literature and at their conferences that Darwinian evolution is factual and that they are to view the world through the evolutionary lens.

“Publish or perish” is a proverb that academicians take seriously. If they don't publish their work for peer review, they have no business in academia. This proverb should apply to scientific theories as well. If a theory claims to explain something but does not even offer an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Theories of molecular evolution have not been published so they should perish, says Dr. Behe.

The “Peer Review” bias against Intelligent Design [viii]

In August 2004, Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture published an article in a peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article argued that naturalistic theories of evolution can't account for the "origination of new biological forms" during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, and suggested intelligent design as an alternative. This article had to go through the same peer-review process as any other scientific paper. But that wasn't enough for many Darwinists. Members of the Biological Society of Washington, as well as the National Center for Science Education, wrote to the journal protesting that the article was "substandard” -- before they'd even read it. Even the Biological Society's governing council distanced themselves from the article, saying that had they known about it beforehand, they "would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings." The statement went on to declare that "Intelligent Design … will not be addressed in future issues of the [journal]." The whole subject is just off-limits. As Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute says, "Instead of addressing the paper's arguments or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate."

How can a respected scientific organization get away with that kind of censorship? Simple: by portraying the subject as non-scientific. Never mind that three scientists approved Meyer's article, as did the journal's editor, who is an evolutionary biologist. Naturalistic evolutionists can't afford to think that Intelligent Design could possibly explain life. They can't even acknowledge it, for fear it would turn their whole philosophy -- yes, philosophy, not science -- upside down. To believe in design means believing in a Designer, and that belief wouldn't fit at all with the closed universe that's essential to the naturalistic worldview. So they take what they see as the only possible way out -- cut off debate and forget about academic freedom. It's frightening to see scientists deliberately decide that a line of scientific inquiry doesn't deserve to be pursued because it doesn't fit their beliefs. Who is putting dogma before science here? The scientists who complained about Meyer's article need to learn that you can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, maintain that a scientific movement must publish a peer-reviewed article in order to be considered legitimate, and then turn around and claim that it wasn't legitimate for a journal to publish any peer-reviewed article from that movement!

Undiscovered natural laws

Of course, there is always the possibility that still some unknown naturalistic mechanism, Darwinian or otherwise, might be discovered that advances the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Some of the research programs in genomics are from the latest frontiers. As one of my professors was fond of saying in light-hearted moments, “Anything is possible except squeezing toothpaste back into its tube.” However, in the absence of any solid affirming empirical evidence after almost 150 years of trying, it is the conclusion of many scientists that evolutionary theory is long due for a “paradigm shift” because Darwin’s theory has failed to explain the one thing that made its promise so grand: the origin of new species. We have come to a point where neo-Darwinists reject common sense in their attempt to defend evolution, and resort instead to ad hoc proposals, ad hominem attacks, and political maneuvering. The priority of the evolutionary paradigm has taken precedence over common sense and empirical findings. Many evolutionists have become so dogmatic that anyone who questions their belief is considered ignorant, or a heretic who should be ridiculed into silence. This is the approach taken by many of the current day popular articles on the subject. The authors attempt to paint a calm picture of well-established science unburdened by serious criticism.[ix] But now that you know better, critically examine the evidence presented and you will quickly come to the conclusion that these articles are many times nothing more than propaganda, with cases built on weak circumstantial evidence and usually a misrepresentation of the creationist’s position as religious dogma.

We have reviewed the failure of presently known physical and chemical laws to explain the origin of life and the evolution of new species. Clearly the present theories are inadequate and those that are committed to Darwinism cling to it by faith rather than by scientific evidence. As I have previously shown, naturalists by definition hold that there are no scientifically meaningful answers from fields that transcend nature, e.g., philosophy and theology. They hold that true (real) knowledge comes only through scientific naturalism. After all, they say, naturalism’s track record has been so remarkable and its scientific methodology is self-correcting and nearly flawless. They comfortably conclude that they have every reason to have faith that someday science will find satisfactory naturalistic answers. So they wait …… going to their grave (or worse) without an adequate answer. In my view they will never find an adequate naturalistic answer because the fundamental answers they seek are beyond (transcendent to) the box in which they have put themselves, i.e., “Nature is all there is.”

Precedents of the past

There have been other times in history when the established scientific paradigm was totally wrong, but the passionately entrenched clung to the traditional wisdom even in the face of totally disconfirming evidence simply because they had nothing better to replace it with. In the 16th century astronomers clung to the Ptolemaic model of the solar system (the earth is at the center) even after hundreds of years of disconfirming evidence. The theory became so cumbersome and so inaccurate for explaining planetary motion that common sense told the new generation of astronomers (like Copernicus) that the tradition he inherited had finally “created a monster.” But by the late Middle Ages, the Ptolemaic model had become a self-evident truth after almost 1500 years. It was the one and only unalterable picture of cosmological reality. The mainstream astronomers along the way, who became aware of the unreality of the whole system, never bothered to consider an alternative theory.

In the late 18th century the same problem surrounded the theory of combustion (fire). It was thought that an invisible substance -- “phlogiston” -- was responsible for combustion. When something burned it allegedly released phlogiston. Experimentation eventually disconfirmed its existence but at every turn the defense of the theory by the intransigent establishment became more and more bizarre and contradictory. Instead of questioning the existence of this mysterious substance, they clung to believing in it even when spectacular proofs clearly demonstrated the theory had to be wrong (e.g. phlogiston had negative weight!). It turned out that phlogiston never existed, but it took a paradigm shift, viz. that combustion is the result of materials chemically combining with oxygen, for the shift in thinking to take place.

Today the same is true with Darwinism. The evidence against macroevolution ever having occurred, or even possessing the capacity to occur, is overwhelming. Yet to the committed Darwinist the evolutionary paradigm is accepted without a shadow of doubt and propagated as such. The current apparent continuing triumph of the theory is only psychological and subjective. In fact, fanatical clinging to the paradigm only emphasizes the metaphysical nature of its evolutionary claims and the lack of any sort of rational or empirical basis.

WHAT ARE THE BIOCHEMICAL LINES OF RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE COMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTION?

Similarities of amino acid sequences within proteins[x]

The information that scientists derive from molecular biology may be used to compare and categorize organisms, just as “anatomical shapes” are used to classify animals (taxonomy). Biochemistry evaluates the sequences of the amino acids within the proteins that are common to the different species.[xi] For example, Darwinists have demonstrated that the amino acid sequences of proteins in humans more closely resemble that of monkeys than that of fishes. This is given as strong evidence to how closely related (at the molecular level) humans are to monkeys, and for Darwinian theory of common descent.

To a large extent biochemical classification has confirmed the classification traditionally developed from anatomy (taxonomy). That is, a horse (biochemically speaking) is more like a cow than it is like a bird, not only in obvious appearance but also in its amino acid sequencing. This is a remarkable scientific discovery and certainly substantiates the anatomical sciences. But, Darwinists hail these similarities in biochemical make-up as compelling evidence for evolution and confirmation that humans share a common ancestry with monkeys. Common ancestral descent, however, is not about classification of species; it’s about the transition between species. When one tries to tie the transition of species together using biochemical comparisons, the pattern that emerges contradicts Darwinian expectations. The biochemical comparisons hold only at the classification (taxonometric) level, but not at the transitional level.

To illustrate, consider the protein “cytochrome c” common among many species and often used for this kind of analysis. “Cytochrome c” usually consists of 104 amino acids. Upon a comparison of its amino acid sequences within humans to other species we find what evolutionists were expecting -- humans differ from Rhesus monkeys by a very small amount – in fact, only 1%. They differ from a pig by 10%; from a fish by 17%; and from an insect by 29%. However, if we try to explain the evolution of the species in Darwinian terms of common descent, i.e., simple-to-complex evolutionary progression, the evidence actually disconfirms it. If evolution were true, we would expect to see some evidence that the %-difference between species would change predictably as one goes up or down the evolutionary tree. That is, Darwinian theory predicts a greater %-difference from an insect to an amphibian than to a fish -- a greater distance still to a reptile; and greater still to a mammal. Yet this pattern is not found. Darwinism claims that fish evolved into amphibians. Thus one would expect that the “cytochrome c” in fish to be more similar to the “cytochrome c” in amphibians than it is to reptiles or mammals. That is not the case. The %-difference between a fish and a frog (amphibian) is the same as it is between a fish and a turtle (reptile), and between a fish and a horse (mammal). All are at about 13%. At the molecular level there is no trace of evolutionary transition from fish to amphibian to retile to mammal.

Similarities of genetic codes in DNA

This %-difference analysis is used to analyze DNA (gene[xii]) sequences as well. Perhaps the most baffling finding is that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that outwardly look very similar and exhibit similar behavior, while creatures that look and behave completely different can have far less genetic divergence. There are, for example, more than 800 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is greater variability of molecular sequencing between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale. Had this information been available to opponents of Darwin in his day, Darwin’s ideas on evolution might very well never have been accepted at all.

Is it “common ancestry” or “common design and function”?

An alternate Intelligent Design explanation is that all living organisms must survive in the same universe and fit into the same food chain. That puts requirements on organisms to be of a common biological and anatomical base. All have carbon-based molecules and all perform common physical functions, e.g., eating, walking, reproducing, etc. It should be no surprise that organisms share similarities at some level in both anatomy and biochemistry.

A decade before Darwin, the biologists who described similarities between the species (homology) attributed these similarities to common design, not to common ancestry. How can one determine whether homology in living things comes from one or the other? Simply pointing to the similarities, as evolutionists do, does not prove anything as biologist Tim Berra inadvertently showed when he used different models of Corvette automobiles to illustrate “descent with modification.” In his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Berra wrote that “descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious” in Corvettes. But we all know that automobile similarities are due to common design rather than common ancestry. Only by demonstrating that a Corvette can morph into another model by natural processes could someone rule out the need for a designer. Similarly, the only scientific way to demonstrate that similarities in living things are due to common ancestry would be to identify the natural mechanism that produced them. According to Darwin’s theory, that mechanism is “natural selection” and the evidence for it is underwhelming.

Darwinism mechanisms of genetic change

There are no explainable mechanisms of genetic change that would lead to the appearance of new species. There are several lines of research, however, that are compatible with the idea of macro genetic change and common ancestry, and the Christian apologist should be aware of them.[xiii]

Regulatory mechanisms: As we have seen, when the genomes of organisms are compared, there is an amazing amount of similarity (homology) between species. A great many of the genes (often in excess of 95%) are the same between species as distantly related as humans, mice and corn plants.[xiv] What this may mean is that the differences between organisms have more to do with how the genes are turned off and on, i.e., how they are regulated and the communication between cells, than to the specific gene itself. The evolutionary implication would be that small genetic changes could have larger effects than one might originally think.

Mutations seem to fit: When you compare some of the similar genes you find in different organisms, they usually differ in some immaterial way that doesn’t change their overall function, e.g. the DNA sequences A-G-A, A-G-C, A-G-G and A-G-T (only the 3rd position changes), all code for the same amino acid Serine. The degree of difference between organisms in terms of these minor changes seems to fit the concept of “relatedness” that one would expect in an evolutionary model.

Gene families: There are genes with strong similarities in their overall sequence that code for proteins with very different functions. So instead of all genes having very unique sequences, they tend to fall into certain families. This leads to a concept called “recruitment” – the idea that a gene having one particular function in the cell can be changed slightly and able to serve another function. In the case of the bacterial flagellum, for example, several of the proteins are extremely similar to proteins involved in different structures. This fact has been used against the irreducible complexity argument put forth by Michael Behe.[xv]

Regulatory cascades: Many genes work in concert through something called a regulatory cascade. A signal molecule of some type can trigger one gene which in turn can make a whole series of other genes “turn on” – and they can trigger still others. This can happen in one cell or between many cells in different parts of the organism. The evolutionary implication is that a small change in one key regulatory gene at the beginning of such a cascade could have a very large effect.

Vestigial genes: Winter Wheat is a grass crop that grows in temperate climates. Its seed will not germinate until it has been exposed to cold weather. This is beneficial because when the seed is produced in the fall it will not start to grow and then get killed in the winter. Rice is a tropical grass and has no “need” for seed dormancy, yet rice has the gene for dormancy on its chromosome but just doesn’t use it. This is certainly not proof of common descent, but it fits the model.

Multiple mechanisms of change: Many of the arguments and calculations that have been made to suggest that evolution is statistically impossible only consider one way that DNA changes – a “point mutation”. In recent years many other mechanisms of genetic change have been discovered, some of which move around large sequences of DNA and which make combinations of sequences that are dramatically different (e.g., transposons, crossing over, retroviruses, etc.). The evolutionary implication is that genetic change can occur in ways that are unexpected and not easily modeled.

Multiple mechanisms of gene regulation

Christian response

None of the phenomena noted constitute evidence that macroevolution can occur – but it is scientific fact consistent with evolutionary theory. There is nothing in the scientific literature, however, (supported by pertinent experiments or calculations) that describes how these processes work as an evolutionary mechanism.

“Young-earth” and “old-earth” creationists comfortably conclude intelligent design is responsible for the diversity of life on the planet. Evolutionists remain convinced that something like Darwinism must have happened and that current evidence (and future scientific discovery) is sufficient to prove it. Theistic evolutionists, however, are many times caught in the middle. Whereas Intelligent Design creationists think that evolutionary evidence favors design, theistic evolutionists tend to think it favors Darwin. In discounting intelligent design, theistic evolutionists also tend to appeal to philosophical and theological considerations. In some theological traditions there is a pessimism about the powers of the native intellect to transcend the physical world. Other traditions see faith and science as two separate compartments that do not necessarily inform one another.

The naturalistic Darwinian establishment sees “theism” in theistic evolution as superfluous. God’s role is unnecessary in our understanding of the physical world. Therefore, the hard-core Darwinian establishment views theistic evolution as, “a weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life on earth has purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of an afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists. (Richard Dawkins is a case in point.)”[xvi]

Other evolutionary models

At the fundamental level of organic molecules within the living cell, the assertion of Darwinian evolution is mere hypothesis at best, and fantasy at worst. So, what are the alternative evolutionary theories being discussed?

At the dawning of the 20th century, another generation of evolutionists was mired in doubts and disagreement about how evolution operates. At that time, all the options seemed inadequate, even after 40 years of classical Darwinism. As we have noted in a previous lesson, Mendelian genetics and mutation theory gave new life to Darwinism so that by the 1930’s the neo-Darwinian synthesis became the reigning paradigm -- and has remained so to this day. But the problems with neo-Darwinian evolution started becoming evident right from the beginning. Disenchantment with it has been growing steadily since the 1940’s as lab instruments and biochemistry reveal exactly what is happening at the cell level.

Here are some of the alternative models that have been accepted over time.

Lamarckism (Jean Batiste De Lamarck, 1744-1829)
Lamarck proposed two lines of evolutionary thought – one naturalistic and one theistic. The naturalistic theme was the prevailing view just prior to Darwin. Survival advantages acquired by a species during its lifetime can be passed on to its offspring; therefore adaptive perfection can be achieved gradually as each successive generation strives to improve its survival characteristics. Lamarckism has inherent plausibility because social evolution seems Lamarckian in character. That is, we learn generation by generation and propagate our learning to the next generation.

The theistic theme is that there is some non-material inner force, or “vital drive” within the organism that drives evolution. Vitalistic theories do not hold any appeal to purely naturalistic scientists because to them it smacks of theism and hence declared out-of-bounds.

“Hopeful Monster” theory (Richard Goldschmidt – 1940’s)
UC Berkeley evolutionary geneticist Richard Goldschmidt became so disenchanted with Darwinism that he proposed (perhaps tongue in cheek) a “hopeful monster” theory to replace it. In his theory, unexpectedly and without warning a reptile egg hatches into a bird! He did not propose a mechanism.

Punctuated Equilibrium (Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, 1970’s - )
Gould and Eldredge proposed Punctuated Equilibrium as an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution. Whereas Darwinian evolution occurs gradually by the accumulation of successive small modifications which account for evolutionary changes, “Punk-Eek” speculates that those changes are made in large leaps over short periods of time. No plausible mechanism is given.

Cooperative and Symbiotic systems (Lynn Margulis, University of Massachusetts, 1980’s - )
Like Stephen Gould, Margulis argues that conventional Darwinian mechanisms could not account for the stops and starts observed in the fossil record. “Symbiosis” she suggests could explain why species appear so suddenly and why they persist so long without changing. This theory postulates that multiple living systems come together for cooperative reasons to help each other develop. However, it assumes that already-functioning complex systems are in place. It offers no explanation as to how these cooperating systems came into being. This theory actually increases the complexity, and hence the improbability, of an evolutionary scenario.

Panspermia – Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1980’s - )
Panspermia postulates that life originated as “spores” elsewhere in the universe where evolutionary conditions were more favorable. These spores found their way to planet earth and took root.[xvii] The theory has two flavors. One proposes an extraterrestrial intelligence that evolved elsewhere and designed the spores casting them into the universe to populate distant planets such as the earth (“directed” panspermia). The second is that life-originating evolution, operating in a more favorable environment than earth’s, created the spores by chance and natural processes, and then the spores fortuitously found their way to earth (“undirected” panspermia). Earth’s evolutionary mechanisms were sufficient to finish the job. Atheistic astronomers Hoyle and Wickramasinghe proposed this theory in their book, Evolution from Space, A Theory of Cosmic Creationism, after they concluded that evolution of life on earth was about as “improbable as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747.” Panspermia does not answer the question of life’s origin any more than Darwinism does. It simply pushes the problem of origins off to some other galaxy.

Complexity (self-organization) theory (Stuart Kauffman, Sante Fe Institute, 1990’s - )
Kauffman began to suspect that Darwin’s theory of evolution was seriously flawed in that it could not account for the seemingly “miraculous” ability of life to appear and then to perpetuate itself in such “miraculous” ways. Kauffman’s theory postulates that systems consisting of a large number of interacting components spontaneously organize themselves into ordered systems. Life systems are not the result of the hard-won success of natural selection, but of pervasive order-generating effects. Kauffman thinks that accident alone cannot have created life; our cosmos must harbor some fundamental order-generating tendency. Studies in “biochemical predestination” by Dean Kenyon and others have shown the implausibility of this mechanism.

Intelligent Design (Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, 1990’s - )
A “completely outside the naturalistic box” theory was proposed in the early 1990’s by a group of loosely organized theistic scholars who advanced the idea that species are too complex to evolve by natural causes alone. While eschewing biblical arguments and chronologies, they see species as the product of “intelligent design.” Phillip Johnson stresses the idea that science should not a priori exclude supernatural causes of natural phenomena. Gaps and abrupt appearances in the fossil record are best explained by special creation. Michael Behe claims that organic molecules are too irreducibly complex to have evolved through small, random steps; and that intelligent design is a more plausible explanation. William Dembski has developed probabilistic theory to support what it means to be “designed.” Stephen Meyer has argued that naturalistic theories of evolution can’t account for the information content of biological systems, but intelligent design can. Intelligent design is a very promising line of research, but is currently prohibited from consideration by the evolutionary establishment -- strictly because of its naturalistic bias.

All these scientists have proposed alternative theories because they know that “something is fundamentally wrong” with Darwinism and they are attempting to offer a better explanation. Regardless of the acceptance of their theories by others, they have had the courage to speak out. Dr. Behe of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, cogently presented his idea of the “irreducible complexity” of the cell in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, in order to better explain scientifically, species as a product of design rather than of chance or natural law. Darwinian evangelist Richard Dawkins says that Behe is an "embarrassment to his profession," and is "lazy" and should get back to the lab to look for the evolutionary linkages. Ad hominem (i.e., personal) attacks of this sort are the last recourse of those who have nothing to say. It is just desperate name-calling by public figures of others who possess neither sticks nor stones, just facts.

Conclusion to Naturalism

Since no gradual path exists to evolve irreducibly complex systems, a straightforward conclusion would be (if no pre-existing bias existed) that biochemical systems were designed. That is, they were not formed by chance and natural selection; rather they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed, then took steps to bring it about. Life on earth, at its most fundamental level, seems to be the product of intelligent activity. This conclusion flows naturally and indubitably from the data themselves, not from sacred books. We could confidently conclude that an intelligent agent designed our biochemical systems. Up until Darwin this was neither the obvious conclusion of the learned nor the unlearned. Darwin offered up an atheistic alternative to intelligent design and the world gobbled it up. Committed atheist Richard Dawkins put it this way, “Darwinian evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” The result of the last 50 years of biochemical science, however, cries out for an intelligent designer to be the Creator of life. The evidence is so compelling that today’s scientific ability to demonstrate its veracity should rank as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. It is as momentous a discovery as that of the earth going around the sun. The scientific community just refuses to acknowledge the obvious, says Behe.[xviii]

With all its deficiencies, the Darwinian model is still the best naturalistic model of evolution ever proposed because it evokes well-understood physical and natural processes. It just doesn’t have the causal power necessary to explain what it claims to be able to do – explain the origin of the species. The naturalistic Lamarckian model is incompatible with our current understanding of heredity – no case has ever been observed of inheritance of acquired characteristics. The Hopeful Monster and Punctuated Equilibrium models, i.e., jumps in nature occur without a trace or a mechanism, cannot be subjected to any sort of empirical confirmation. Symbiotic systems theory actually increases the complexity of an evolutionary explanation. Panspermia pushes off evolutionary origins to outer space where even less is known. Complexity theory is “fact free science” as mathematical modeling is proposed without empirical verification. And creationist models, such as Intelligent Design are off-limits to the naturalistic evolutionist. Therefore, Darwinism remains the paradigm left standing. Reject Darwinism and there is in effect, no good naturalistic theory of evolution to replace it. On the other hand, Intelligent Design (ID) theory is rational, reasonable and is developing a strong empirical basis to support it.

Christian response

Intelligent Design, though it has religious implications, should not be rejected on that basis alone. The question for science must always be whether or not something is true, not from where did it originate? ID is the best inference of the observable data. In the early 20th century there was much scientific opposition to the big bang theory because it implied a creation event; and that implied a Creator. The empirical evidence eventually became so overwhelming that the bias against the religious implication was overcome. Big bang cosmology doesn’t seem to have hampered scientific investigation or research programs because of the acceptance of a creation event. Likewise, as evidence accumulates for design, the religious implications for a Designer won’t foil science and throw it back into the dark ages as the nervous critics proclaim.

Evolutionists must face the fact that all scientific conclusions are ultimately based on unproven and unprovable philosophical premises. Arguments that come from secular scientists are not privileged. And those that come from people of faith are not somehow out of bounds. Religious arguments have no special authority in the scientific arena, but the attempt to label those arguments as illegitimate because of their origin is simply a fashionable form of prejudice.

As Christian apologists we are called to understand our opponent’s views, become knowledgeable about the issues, and engage in the apologetic task. We are to pray that the Holy Spirit will open-up the minds of those who are blind to the Creator/Designer so that they might see the data through a “saving” lens. Remember both the Christian and the non-Christian are looking at the same data, however through a different set of assumptions. The eyes of the Christian have been opened by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, but the god of this world has blinded the eyes of the unbelieving.

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world had blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”- 2 Cor. 4:4,5

--------

[i] River Out of Eden, Richard Dawkins, (Basic Books, 1995), p. 83.
[ii] Much of the information about the biological cell in this lesson was adapted from the book, Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe.
[iii] Darwin’s cohort Ernst Haeckel declared the cell to be a “simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon.” Scientists of that age thought the cell so simple that it might just “pop-up spontaneously from sea mud.”
[iv] The term “black box” is used to describe an object that can be understood from the outside by studying its operation, but little is understood of how it operates inside. An example of a “black box” is your personal computer. You can understand how it operates by mastering the keyboard and screen, but you may have no understanding how it works inside.
[v] Each human cell contains about 10 feet of DNA with about 3 billion sub-units. The total DNA of a particular organism is referred to as its “genome.”
[vi] Robert Shapiro in his book, Origins, A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, tells of the early work of Yale molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz who calculated the odds of a chance creation of a cell at 1 in 10 to the hundred billionth power (10^{100,000,000,000}). This is the number 10 multiplied by itself a hundred billion times and would be written as 1 followed by 100 billion zeros. This is a number so infinitely large that to write it out in conventional form would require several billion pages and a near eternity of time! Morowitz describes his own work in, Energy Flow in Biology, (Academic Press, 1968).
According to French probability expert Emile Borel’s “single law of chance” -- beyond 1 chance in 10⁵⁰, things never occur, i.e. they are “impossible” as a practical matter. Morowitz’s odds are 99,999,999,950 times “more impossible” than the “impossible.”
[vii] A current example is that the first life forms arose from special “super” RNA molecules that could carry out all the essential functions of DNA, RNA and proteins. DNA, “regular” RNA, and proteins then evolved somehow from the “super” RNA molecules. There is no empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. Even if there was, RNA molecules could not survive without a cell for its environment. The cell would have to be constructed first, which is impossible without RNA as a building block. At every turn, we are led back to the “chicken and the egg” problem.
[viii] As reported in Breakpoint with Charles Colson; Commentary 11/23/2004.
[ix] A good example is the November 2004 issue of National Geographic. The cover story, Was Darwin Wrong?, and the more than 30 pages of articles under the title section: NO!! The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. It simply ignores the problems and the controversy.
[x] Adapted from Of Pandas and People, by Percival Davis, Dean Kenyon and Charles Thaxton.
[xi] Biochemistry has discovered that the sequence of amino acids in a given protein is not fixed but varies from species to species. Though a protein might perform the same function in different species, it may differ in the sequencing of its amino acids. This “sequence difference” can be calculated by “lining-up” the amino acid sequence of the same protein from two different species, and counting the number of “amino-acid-positions” that differ. As a hypothetical illustration, consider two species (S1 and S2) containing the same protein c, which is made up of 10 amino acids (represented by the letters A through J). The amino acid sequences of c in S1 and S2 can be compared:

The amino acid sequence of
protein c in species S1 is:             A B C D E F G H I J
                                                                         :: :: ::
The amino acid sequence of
protein c in species S2: is:           A D C D J F B H I J

The sequences of the 10 amino acids differ in 3 positions (B::D; E::J; and G::B). The %-difference between species S1 and S2 is calculated to be 30% (3 out of 10 positions differ). If there was only 1 position difference, the %-difference would be 10% (1/10).
[xii] Genes are the segments of DNA passed-on from parent to offspring through heredity. Human beings are estimated to have 30,000 genes. In the neo-Darwinian synthesis, evolution occurs because chance-generated mutated genes produce advantageous traits in the offspring thereby increasing the frequency of those genes in the population (natural selection).
[xiii] Steve Savage Ph.D. contributes this section and wisely cautions the Christian apologist who is tempted to conclude something “can’t happen” because of irreducible complexity. When we make absolute assertions that something “can’t happen,” we don’t have to be fully refuted to loose credibility; we only have to be only “nicked” in our logic. There is no sense setting oneself up for being disproved on a small detail of scientific complexity if in the process we lose the main point. What we are learning about the cell from biochemistry is increasing daily so we must be careful about making irreducible-complexity arguments of “what can’t be done.”
[xiv] We have also shown that this similarity can be just as easily attributed to common design as it can be to common ancestry.
[xv] In response, Dr. Scott Minnich notes that at least 40 proteins are used in the assembly of the bacterial flagellum and at least 30 of them are unique – hardly “nicking” Behe’s argument.
[xvi] William A. Demski, Intelligent Design, The Bridge Between Science and Theology, (Intervarsity Press, 1999).
[xvii] Science has shown that some very rudimentary forms of bacteria can survive the hostilities of space.
[xviii] Romans 1:18-25 says that man clearly understands this conclusion, but willfully suppresses the truth.

2005-01-20T17:19:00.000-08:00

Lesson 6 – The Origin Of The Species: Part I

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION

O LORD, how many are your works! In wisdom you have made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, great and broad, in which are swarms without number; animals both great and small.
- Psalm 104:24, 25

(Darwinian) Evolution is both a beautiful concept and an important one, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before. It’s also highly persuasive – a theory you can take to the bank.
- National Geographic, November 2004

Darwinism (biological evolution)

The elements of the theory of evolution, which was originally formulated by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his treatise The Origin of the Species, can be summarized as follows:

All living organisms are related by common ancestry. This relationship is normally depicted as the “evolutionary tree of life.”[i]

Incremental biological improvements to a species originate by chance variations which happen to provide a survival advantage. This is the primary mechanism of evolution and is known as natural selection.

Species progress in survivability over time in tiny continuous steps (gradualism) from simpler organisms to more complex ones (descent with modification). Natural selection gives competitive biological survival advantage to the fittest organisms (survival of the fittest).

The biological advantages of an organism are passed on to succeeding generations through heredity.

Major transformation of life forms, e.g., the formation of a new species, takes place gradually over long periods of time through the accumulation of a great number of tiny changes.

Some branches of the evolutionary tree die out over time, i.e., the species goes extinct. These are the ones not having survival capability. The fittest organisms with survival advantage keep reproducing (differential reproduction).

In the early 20th century new discoveries in genetics and mutation theory were integrated into Darwinian evolution to become the basis of today’s Neo-Darwinian Synthesis.

Intelligent Design (ID)

In the early 1990’s, Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson began challenging conventional evolutionary theory on the basis that since the 1960’s scientific evidence has yielded so much disconfirming evidence that Darwinism is no longer a viable theory.[ii] Today his initial work has grown into a movement known as Intelligent Design (ID), which not only challenges the veracity of evolution based on the evidence, but also offers its own theory (design) to better explain the origin of the universe and life in it. In opposition to ID, evolutionists insist that the evidence supporting their traditional theory is “abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available.”[iii]

The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis

Darwinian theory was beginning to wane by the late nineteenth century, almost being discredited all together because of a lack of evidence and experimental data, particularly in the area of how variations occur and how characteristics are passed on to the next generation. During the 1860’s, an Austrian monk with an interest in natural history, Gregor Mendel, started experimenting with successive generations of plants. He laid the theoretical groundwork upon which our modern theory of heredity is built, although his work was largely ignored for 35 years. Around 1910 geneticist Thomas H. Morgan observed spontaneous mutations among a breeding population of fruit flies. Morgan and Mendel’s experimental contributions breathed new life into Darwinian theory. Morgan supplied chance variation with a more energetic mechanism for change – mutation; and Mendelian genetics supplied natural selection with the needed mechanism for how a single new advantageous trait could be passed on from parent to offspring.[iv] The integration of Mendelian genetics and mutation theory into Darwinism came together by 1930 to become the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis.

Subsequently, the big-bang theory (cosmological evolution), origin of life studies (chemical evolution), and sociobiology (social evolution) have been conceptually integrated with the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis to form a complete and continuous naturalistic explanation of the creation of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of the species (including mankind), and the evolution of our societal order. What started out as a biological scientific hypothesis – Darwinism – has evolved into a grand metaphysical scheme of evolutionism (naturalism).

Evolutionism

When scientific Darwinian theory is integrated with other aspects of evolutionary thought, including the social sciences, the humanities, philosophy, etc., it is labeled evolutionism. Since all these studies eliminate the consideration of God as a possible agent, and are constrained by their own pre-suppositions to explain all phenomena by purely material and naturalistic means, it is also called naturalism. The conclusions of evolutionism/naturalism are: (see the cover page of Lesson 1)

Time, space, matter and energy were “created” by big bang cosmological evolution. Natural evolutionary processes then created everything else from these fundamental building blocks.

Organic molecules (up to and including the first living cell) evolved from inorganic atoms through chemical evolution.

Living cells first evolved into lower forms of life which, in turn, evolved in higher forms of life and eventually into human beings through biological evolution (Darwinism).

Meaning, purpose, ethics, morality and values in human life are created by individuals and societies over the history of mankind through social evolution.

This complexity of evolving creatures and societies is in operation today and humankind is still evolving into a yet unknown higher form.

The Origin of the Species (Darwinism)

In 1859, English naturalist Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species, By Means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Survival. Darwin’s theory of evolution is actually two quite distinct theories:

The Special Theory of evolution says that species[v] undergo “life enhancing” changes in order to better adapt to their environment. Also, new variants within a species can be brought about by human intervention, i.e., intelligently directed activities such as animal breeding. This special theory has been proven to be true and is generally understood as adaptation and artificial selection, and known as microevolution. It is a modest theory that changes in living organisms can easily and readily take place in nature and by human intervention, but on a small scale and within limits.

The General Theory of evolution extrapolates the changes observed on a micro basis to explain universally all the manifold diversity of life on earth. This radical extrapolation of the Special Theory is what most people think of when they refer to the theory of Darwinian or biological evolution. It is known as macroevolution and is the “evolution” claimed factual. Macroevolution is what the debate is all about.

Microevolution is true

Microevolution, i.e., biological adaptation within limits, is an observed fact and has been demonstrated to occur on a small scale. Examples include:

Cumulative adaptive resistance of certain destructive organisms to antibiotics, pesticides and the like.

The adaptation of a species to its environment, such as the variation in the finches observed by Darwin on the Galapagos Islands (during his voyage on the HMS Beagle in 1831).

The coloration change in the peppered moth population observed by Oxford Zoologist Bernard Kettlewell in 1950.[vi]

The purposeful selective breeding of plant and animal species (artificial selection).

Microevolution occurring in nature across some closely-related species. For example, the Hawaiian fruitfly and certain birds such as the North American wood warbler and Hawaiian honeycreeper.

Some closely related plant species being formed spontaneously by microevolution through massive chromosomal mutation.

Macroevolution is speculation

The empirical findings of microevolution, however, have been inappropriately extrapolated to “prove” macroevolution, such as the origin and creation of entirely new species, new body plans and organs. The facts of microevolution are used as evidence as facts for macroevolution. This is poor scientific methodology, mere speculation and not supported by the evidence. Darwin in the Origin of the Species, and subsequent supporters of the theory, have gone far beyond the evidence of the Special Theory. They have argued and have won acceptance for the General Theory (macroevolution) by saying that the same natural processes that brought about the variation in Darwin’s finches and Kettlewell’s moths have ultimately brought about all the diversity of life on earth. Within 10 - 20 years after publication, Darwin’s General Theory was elevated from a highly speculative hypothesis to unchallenged dogma and has proven to this day to be a watershed in Western thought. If the microevolution theory had stayed within the scope of the evidence, “evolution” never would have had the revolutionary and controversial impact on all branches of modern thought as it has had.

A recent example of unwarranted extrapolation is demonstrated in the 1994 New York Times article entitled, The Handy-Dandy Evolution Prover; also a book review entitled, The Beak of the Finch.[vii] The authors, two Princeton researchers who studied finches on Daphne Island found that finch beaks grew 5% larger when droughts came. The beak was better shaped for opening the last tough seeds remaining on the island. This example of microevolution-in-action was touted as “overwhelming proof” for macroevolution. According to that kind of reasoning, finch-beak growth is fundamentally the same process that brought birds into existence in the first place: macroevolution is merely the extrapolation of the microevolutionary process. These scientists failed to mention, however, that when the rain returned the beaks grew smaller once again as that was the better adaptation for picking up the tiny seeds that became abundantly available again. The article went on to describe, “the astonishing persistence of Christian fundamentalists who still do not believe in evolution … debating the reality of the (evolutionary) process seems as absurd as debating the existence of gravity.” The authors attribute Christian’s intransigence to their lack of knowledge about the “overwhelming proof” of evolution.

But the facts are that no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by selection -- natural or other wise. Bacteria should be the easiest organism in which to observe this, because bacteria can produce thousands of generations in a matter of months, and they can be subjected to powerful mutation-causing agents and hence intense selection. Nevertheless, in over a century of research no new species of bacteria have emerged. There are Darwinian biologists who have claimed they produced “incipient species” but this merely refers to different strains of the same species that those researchers believe on theoretical grounds might eventually become new species.

Early Supporting Evidence

Darwin’s theory became buttressed at an early stage by a supposedly powerful array of supporting evidence. But in fact, this so-called evidence is nothing more than assumptions made by the ruling intellectual elites of Darwin’s era whose ideology lingers on to this day. Examples include:

Vestigial Organs – The Encyclopedia Britannica still says there are more than 100 redundant human organs left behind by evolution. School biology lessons and some textbooks list the pineal gland, thyroid, thymus, appendix, tonsils, coccyx, as vestigial organs. But over time science has found that most of these organs have at least some function during our life span. The coccyx (tail bone) serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments. It is not the vestigial remnant of where our tail was connected so we could swing through trees. There is evidence that the appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as a reservoir of antibody producing cells, etc.

Recapitulation – Ernst Haeckel asserted that the human embryo started life resembling a single-celled marine organism; then developed in latter stages into a “worm” with a pulsating heart; then into a fish with gill slits and a two-chambered heart; then into a mammal with a four-chambered heart (with a tail); and finally into a human baby. This is no longer taken seriously by embryologists. Yet these pictures continue to be reproduced in our modern day biology textbooks. Worse yet, Haeckel fraudulently developed his drawings of the embryonic developmental process. He faked the similarities between the species in their early stages of development; and he cherry-picked his examples to get closest to his desired conclusion. Worst of all, he lied by saying the diagrams represented the earliest stage of development when they do not! Yet, his wishful thinking and fraudulent evidence has been passed down as evolutionary legend and can still be found in textbooks, the media, and is used in many public school district debates. Detailed scientific studies of developmental pathways clearly indicate that the human embryo never undergoes the developmental stages diagrammed by Haeckel and assumed by early Darwinists. In fact, we now know that there are striking and unpredictable differences between all the species in early developmental stages.

The Fossil Record demonstrates gaps, not continuity

Darwinists claim that the fossil record offers convincing evidence that evolution is responsible for the common ancestry of all living things. To Darwinists there is no intellectual basis for dissent because the fossil record proves evolution-in-action. Evolutionists can’t understand why there is such a disturbingly large group of Christians who, in their view, irrationally reject it. The fossil record has been continuously heralded as proof of evolution. The prestigious National Academy of Sciences says: “The fossil record thus provides compelling evidence of systematic change through time – of descent with modification.”[viii] Evolutionary scientists are nearly unanimous in believing that the fossil record has preserved the critical evidence demonstrating that evolutionary change (transition) has occurred from the lower to the higher forms of life.

After 145 years of finding and classifying fossils (since the publication of the Origin of the Species) we have found and cataloged an estimated 250 million fossils representing some 250 thousand fossil species. What does that record show? It demonstrates that there are sudden and abrupt changes between species, not gradual transitional forms. We see a fossil record composed entirely of gaps. “Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday.”[ix] “The fossil record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”[x] Since Darwinian evolution operates so infinitesimally slow, we would expect the entire fossil record to be chock full of transitional forms. Instead there are none, except for a few highly controversial candidates. No serious paleontologist disagrees with the fact of extensive gaps. Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum in New York City confessed: “I admit that an awful lot of that (misinformation about the fossil record) has gotten into textbooks as though it were true … Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kind of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.”[xi]

In my library I have Eldredge’s book, Fossils, The Evolution and Extinction of Species. It is a beautiful work with 220 pages of high quality photographs of many of the most significant fossils ever discovered. Stephen Jay Gould, the famous Harvard paleontologist, wrote in the Introduction, “I love this book … a rare example of excellence [of text and picture] in union. Photographs and text are united into a common vision of life’s history and evolution.” Both Gould and Eldredge realize and admit that the fossil record actually disproves the Darwinism mechanism of evolution. Yet they choose to remain committed evolutionists. How then do they rationalize the fossil evidence? They suggest that the gaps should be viewed as real and proof of their own theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (“punk-eek” to the in-crowd). This theory says that “lineage change is little during most of a species history, but events of rapid speciation occasionally punctuate this tranquillity.”[xii] In other words, to get new species, evolution speeds up and happens so fast that the fossil record just doesn’t capture it. Punctuated Equilibrium doesn’t remove the need for the intermediate fossils, it only attempts to explain why the transitional fossils are never found. It may be the only scientific theory ever put forth to explain why evidence for it cannot be found! This matter is glossed over in the literature as a minor in-house debate and certainly not as evidence that evolution might not be true in the first place.

The Cambrian explosion

The single greatest problem that the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the Cambrian explosion of approximately 530 million years ago (named for the Cambrian period of early earth’s history). The fossil record reveals the absence of complex life forms in the period just before (the Pre-Cambrian period), and then suddenly most all the abundant numbers of advanced life forms appear! In this “biological big bang” nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinism requires. As Richard Dawkins puts it, “It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” The complexity of these animals is so great that evolutionists have to admit that it would take (under their theory) at least 1.5 billion years to evolve. Obviously, if evolution were true we should expect to find billions of evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian life forms in the Pre-Cambrian rocks. However, not a single, indisputable, multi-cellular fossil has ever been found. Clearly this is, at best, disconfirming and very disappointing evidence for the Darwinist; and at worst, it is proof that evolution is false.

In his interview with Lee Strobel for the book The Case for a Creator (Zondervan, 2004), Jonathan Wells, a researcher and Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology, says that the findings of the Cambrian Explosion are absolutely contrary to Darwin’s Tree of Life. The animals, which are so fundamentally different in their body plans appear fully developed all of a sudden in what paleontologists have called the single most spectacular phenomenon of the fossil record. Wells drew an analogy of the timing of the Cambrian explosion to a football game. “Imagine yourself on one goal line of a football field. That line represents the first fossil -- a microscopic, single-celled organism. Now start marching down the field. You pass the 20-yard line, the 40-yard line; you pass mid-field and you’re approaching the other goal line. All you’ve seen this entire time are microscopic, single –cell organisms. You come to the 16-yard line on the far end of the field, and now you see some sponges and maybe some jellyfish and worms. Then – boom – in the space of a single stride, all these forms of animals (of the Cambrian explosion) suddenly appear!” The Cambrian explosion has uprooted Darwin’s tree (and made it a putting green) yet little mention of these remarkable facts appear in school textbooks. Why aren’t we teaching the controversy?

Convergence

Paleontology tells us that some 65 million years ago mammals began their rise to dominance, culminating in the appearance of human beings. Practically all mammals have appeared as either placental (bearing their young when fully developed) or marsupial (giving birth prematurely and nurturing the young in a pouch). A large number of mammals (e.g., rats, wolves, moles, flying squirrels, anteaters, some cats, etc.) can be either marsupial or placental, being practically identical in every other way. The marsupials are confined to Australia and South America and the placental mammals are found all over. How is it possible, if evolution is true, for the Tasmanian wolf (marsupial) and the European timber wolf (placental) to be virtually identical in every way except for their “early childhood?” These animals evolved on two different continents and in two different survival environments. Convergence would be literally a miracle rather than a coincidence if random mutation and natural selection was the mechanism. Evolutionists simply beg the question.[xiii] The existence of identical “evolutionary outcomes in isolated environments” is one of the strongest possible indications that random mutation and natural selection are incapable of explaining the origin of species. This is seldom dealt with in the textbooks.

Intermediate Forms

The “missing links” are missing between all categories (species, genus, family, order, class, phylum) of animals. This is a real problem for Darwinists who maintain, along with Darwin that, “As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps.”[xiv] Such a slow gradual mechanism of evolution necessitates innumerable transitional (intermediate) forms, and this was acknowledged freely by Darwin on many occasions. In his day, Darwin could point only to a few candidates as intermediate forms: Archaeopteryx -- the alleged intermediate between bird and reptile; and Hipparion -- an early three-toed horse, the alleged intermediate between existing horses and certain older five-toed forms. Today none of these candidates (nor any other candidates proposed over the decades) are convincing. Archaeopteryx is most likely just an extinct bird; and Hipparion, an extinct horse.

Darwin acknowledged he was short on candidates, but was confident that the needed fossils just weren’t found yet. Now that we have over 250 million fossils we would expect to have his needed proof. In 1979 Luther Sunderland interviewed the head officials of the five leading natural history museums which house some of the largest fossil collections in the world.[xv] In his book, Darwin’s Enigma, Sunderland presents the substance of those interviews. None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type into another. Dr. Colin Paterson, senior paleontologist and editor of a prestigious journal published by the British Museum of Natural History, wrote to Sunderland, “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.” It is strange that, after 145 years of searching for the linking forms, the world’s greatest fossil museums have not been able to find them -- unless perhaps they do not exist? Even after the last 35 years of strong empirical evidence lining up against Darwin’s theory, and the positive evidence lining up for Intelligent Design (plus recent doubts by many leading evolutionary scientists), Darwinism is still as much on the offensive and defensive as anytime in the past.[xvi]

Human evolution

Darwin and other evolutionists do not claim that humans descended directly from apes. Rather, they believe that modern humans and modern apes have a common ancestor – that we are all part of the “hominid” family. With the available fossil evidence as complete for humans as for any of the animals, evolutionists have assembled a human evolutionary tree based on (1) the uprightness of the posture of the hominid (presumably because that has survival value in a changing environment); (2) the size of the cranial cavity (the bigger the brain, allegedly the more intelligent), (3) the development and use of tools, and (4) linguistic, artistic and religious capabilities. Today, in addition, molecular biology is used to evaluate and classify the placement of a specimen on the evolutionary tree. But that discussion will be the subject of another lesson.

Evolutionists claim that the evidence for human evolution is conclusive and demonstrates that humans and apes evolved from common ancestry. The National Academy of Sciences says, “Today … there is no significant doubt about the close evolutionary relationships among all the primates or between apes and humans. The ’missing links’ that troubled Darwin and his followers are no longer missing.” Does the evidence warrant such a conclusion? In his work on the subject, Darwin did not cite a single reference to fossils in support of his belief in human evolution.[xvii] Since Darwin’s time, evolutionists continue to search for fossil remains to support their premise that man evolved. Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the fossil record of mankind is woefully inadequate to justify belief in evolution. There are only miniscule fossil remains of creatures ancestral to humans – often just skull fragments or teeth. One anthropologist in Science magazine likened the reconstruction task to trying to understand the plot of War and Peace by using 13 random pages from the book. Jonathan Wells recounts that the chief science writer for Nature, Henry Gee, was quite candid about the state of affairs in 1999 when he said, “The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” Gee went on to say that each fossil is “an isolated point” with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and “all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.” He said that all the fossil evidence for human evolution (several thousand generations’ worth, over millions of years) can be fitted into a small box and that the conventional picture of human evolution is “a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Yet, that doesn’t stop the establishment from indoctrinating our school children with the “fact” that humans and monkeys evolved from some unknown common ancestor. Instead, why aren’t we teaching the controversy?

What does the fossil record show concerning human evolution?

Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus have all been heralded as transitional forms of human evolution. The average person on the street probably believes these classifications represent genuine intermediate forms. That is because specimens when discovered are assumed to be “missing links” since they are presented as such. After many years of scientific analysis, however, the conclusions are highly debatable. The alleged intermediate forms can just as easily be some kind of monkey or early human instead of a transitional form. That conclusion, however, receives far less fan-fare, and is almost always too late to reverse what had already been put into the school textbooks. The fact is that intermediate forms between ape and man are still mere speculation.

Almost monthly, newspapers carry articles about new discoveries allegedly filling-in the human evolutionary tree. A careful reading, however, reveals just how little is known and how contradictory the evidence is within the established paradigm. The August 6, 2002 New York Times article, Skulls Found in Africa and in Europe Challenge Theories of Human Origins, is representative. In it Dr. Bernard Wood, a paleontologist at George Washington University admits, "This really exposes how little we know of human evolution and the origin of our own genus Homo." "When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder," Dr. Wood said. The ladder, he explained, “stepped from monkey to modern human through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less apelike than the previous one.” But today the family tree, once drawn straight as a ladder, has now been reconfigured with branches leading all over the place and, in some cases, leading apparently to a dead end. So today a “tangled bush” has replaced the “evolutionary tree” as the ascendant imagery of human evolution. The picture of human genealogy gets more complex, not simpler. Scholars of human prehistory, however, eagerly await the “next find” to support their pre-suppositions. But, when it gets down to the evidence, human evolution is in fact a “faith position” of the naturalist. And, the fact that Homo sapiens are the only living hominid is still strong evidence for the “faith position” of the creationist.

Another representative article has been published as I write (October 2004). A new and “one of the most spectacular fossil finds in half a century” appears in the British scientific journal Nature. According to the authors this find “could rewrite the history of human evolution.” The remains of a tiny (3 foot tall) hominid was discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores. Some believe him to be an extinct offshoot of Homo erectus, but others think a separate species of Homo. But perhaps he is not a full grown human; or a perhaps he’s a dwarf; or possibly an ape? The authors say they are convinced he is a full-grown adult hominid. Again, the evidence is scant, but the hype is extensive.

The human evolutionary tree

Fossil material for the hominid Ramapithecus (12-14 million years ago) was first discovered in 1932. By the 1960’s evolutionists installed Ramapithecus into man’s family tree. But, by 1980 the fossil evidence indicated that Ramapithecus was more similar to an orangutan than to a man. Today, most all anthropologists have dropped it from man’s ancestry. Australopithecus (“Southern ape,” 1-4 million years ago) was first discovered in 1924 (the famous “Lucy” is in this category). It was heralded by many Darwinists as ancestral to man. However, by 1960 many concluded Australopithecus to be an extinct ape. In 1964 H. habilis was incorporated into the lineage for the origin of man. Today it appears that it could just as easily be an extinct primate similar in structure to a chimpanzee, or even possibly a human pygmy. Homo erectus, a.k.a. Java man or Peking man (1.6 million to 250,000 years ago), is thought to have evolved from H. habilis. Many are convinced that Homo erectus was nearly human and directly ancestral to man. But, some regard him as little more than an ape. Others regard him as a true member of the human family. What’s the truth? Why not teach the controversy instead of pretending we know?

Darwinian theory has H. erectus evolving into modern man (Homo sapien) between 500,000 and 250,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon man lived about 40,000 years ago and Neanderthal man disappeared from the fossil record about 10,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon man is anatomically identical to modern humans and left behind finely crafted stone and bone tools, shell and ivory jewelry, and polychrome paintings on cave walls. Neanderthal man differs significantly from Cro-Magnon anatomically (has brow ridges, low, sloping foreheads, a chinless and heavy, forward-jutting jaw, and extremely large front teeth). In the 1950’s the media depicted Neanderthal as “given a bath, a collar, and tie he would pass unnoticed in the New York subway.” However by 2003, DNA analysis revealed that Neanderthal contributed no genetic material to the modern human genome and was not likely linguistic nor cultural in a human sense (no cave paintings, burial goods, or other cultural relics). It is quite likely that Cro-Magnon is simply early modern man and Neanderthal is some kind of extinct hominid. Why not discuss all points of view based on the evidences?

The “missing links” are still missing according to the scientific evidence. But Darwinists go about their business assuming “ape-man”-to-“human” evolution to be true. Anyone not already committed to naturalism, however, and anyone willing to take the time to look seriously at the disconfirming evidence, must conclude that the fossil record provides little support for the evolution of mankind. But the entrenched establishment doesn’t “want to confuse our kids,” let alone start a discussion of whether or not the human evolutionary is true at all. So little of the controversy is ever revealed and the evolutionary indoctrination continues unchallenged.

Indoctrination, not science, in our public schools

In 1997 the San Diego Union-Tribune distributed a free CD-ROM -- How Man Began -- to every public school student in grades 3 through 12. For the entire year, the paper had front-page articles in its Science section regarding the evolution of man from ape-like creatures. The material was developed by a panel of teachers from the San Diego City Schools to meet the California State requirements in science for grade levels 3-12. The project was partially funded by grants from the U. S. Department of Education and the San Diego City School system. How Man Began instructs students in “how millions of years of evolution … (has) “brought life forward, from tiny sacs of nucleic acids to the human beings we are today.” It takes the students through 12 evolutionary steps of humankind that highlight, “the physical, psychological and behavioral changes that helped make humans the remarkable and unique animals we are today.” It presented a synopsis of the “grand evolutionary tale, perhaps the greatest story ever told…a snapshot, a glimpse into a never-ending story.” The CD begins by recounting that in 1896, the first president of Cornell University, Andrew White, said: “The old theory of direct creation is gone forever … It has been replaced by the theory of evolution … Even though the Theory of Evolution is one of the most profound scientific discoveries of all time, affecting every discipline from geology to cosmology, its history has always been one of incredible tumult and unending criticism.” The indoctrination continues, “In 1925, Clarence Darrow had to defend John Scopes for illegally presenting Charles Darwin’s revolutionary theory in the classroom … For 42 years thereafter, Tennessee’s law against teaching evolution remained on the books.” The series assures the students that any debate is only within the confines of the evolutionary details. Any quibbling is only over small details like “accumulation of small gradual changes” (Darwinism) versus “sudden large changes” (Punctuated Equilibrium) since “virtually all scientists agree that evolution remains the only scientifically valid explanation for how life has progressed upon Earth.” Why are they so committed to indoctrination rather than teaching the controversy?

Man versus animal – a huge difference in kind [xviii]

It is human intelligence that stands out as the uniquely defining aspect of human nature. Our symbolically structured intelligence is received and built in human community, so that we are at root social beings. Human language supports a host of other uniquely human characteristics -- freedom and creativity in the arts, culture, and religion. Perhaps most importantly, symbolic reasoning underlies our human ethical capacity and moral reasoning. Without being able to visualize, describe, and categorize future options, moral freedom is impossible. It is for this reason that regardless of whatever ‘pre-moral’ behavior animals are said to possess, no one in the animal-rights discussion ever talks about giving animals moral responsibility -- animals are ‘amoral’. Only human beings exercise moral reasoning, and are capable of responsible interpersonal relationship. If this is what we mean by personhood (and I would suggest this is a minimal definition), then the natural sciences agree that in all the animal kingdom, only human beings are truly persons. Human symbolic reasoning, language, moral capacity, and spiritual awareness are not even potentially present in the rest of the animal kingdom.

While modern science may have closed some of the gap separating human beings from other creatures, it has at the same time illuminated how wide and fixed the gap remains. Human intelligence, linguistic capacity, moral and relational freedom, spiritual nature and awareness, and social and cultural creativity are unique in the world; and as far as we know, unique in the cosmos. We appear to be the highest and most complex material life form in the universe, with an unparalleled level of freedom and an orientation to the infinite and transcendent that sets us apart from all other creatures. Scientists speak with awe of humans as the being “in whom the universe has become conscious of itself”, and of the human brain as “the most complex object in the known universe.” Thus human uniqueness appears to be a credible scientific fact.

As the one creature in the cosmos made in the image of the Creator, this is not a surprise to Christians. Scripture draws an absolute line between humans and all other creatures, and this picture of human uniqueness is consistent with our modern knowledge of evolutionary history. Contrary to the stereotype, contemporary science agrees that in human beings something very special has appeared in the cosmos.

Social Evolution

In 1975 Harvard social biologist E. O. Wilson broke a “precarious truce” between the social scientists and the biological and physical scientists. In his book, Sociobiology, Wilson redefined a person in evolutionary terms: “a person is a gene’s way of making another gene.” Since that time it has been commonplace to relate natural selection to human behavior, e.g., Darwinian anthropology, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology and behavioral genetics.[xix] All human behavior is now subject to explanation in Darwinian terms. Even Mother Teresa’s altruism and her devotion to the welfare of others is interpreted in evolutionary terms as “self-interest.” Either she is motivated by her selfish genes which “hard-wire” her for adaptive advantage, or she is motivated by selfish desire for the hope of heaven. Parents are “designed” (by natural selection) to steer kids towards moral behavior only insofar as those behaviors are self-serving. Scientific observation does not support these theories, neither does our experience and common sense. There are real moral imperatives! Human beings really do care about others, and even sometimes in selfless ways. Evolutionary philosophers such as Michael Ruse, however, have come to the conclusion that selfless behavior is a perverse departure from our evolved nature – a “pathological deviation.” The noblest of all our human behavior – our loving interactions -- is likewise seen as a “radical aberration.” It appears that once you are committed to the evolutionary model, as Ruse is, then no data, scientific experimentation or common sense will make you re-evaluate your pre-supposition. To Wilson, Ruse and others, evolution is true with a capital “T.” All human behavior can be explained by evolution, and researchers keep generating naturalistic theories attempting to do so. Any dis-confirming evidence is simply explained away as a perversion rather than being seen as the theory being flawed.

The Biblical account of creation

In opposition to evolutionism, the Bible gives us the creationist’s account of history. The Bible portrays a transcendent and eternal God who has will, purpose and the power to bring things into existence out of nothing. God is Sovereign over His creation and directs human history towards His ultimate purpose. Reviewing the highlights of the biblical account (see the second cover page in Lesson 1):

The 7 “days” (Hb. “yom”) of creation

Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

Genesis 1:5 – “And there was evening and morning, one day.”

Genesis 1:20-23 – “Then God said, ‘let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.’ And, God created … every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind … And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.”

Genesis 1:24 – “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.”

Genesis 1:27 – “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female he created them.”

Genesis 1:29-30 – “Then God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every green plant for food,’ and it was so.”

Genesis 1:31 – “And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”

Genesis 2:1, 2 – “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed … And by the seventh day God completed His work that He had done.”

Revelation 21:1, 2 – “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there was no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.”

Purposeful (intelligent) design

Job 42:2 – “I know that You (God) can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.”

Ephesians 1:11 – “In Christ we have been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”

Acts 17:30, 31 – “Having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

The Christian’s Response

As unsupportable as evolution might seem, and as passion-arousing as naturalism might seem as an ideology, the Christian is called to give his or her reasoned response with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).

2 Timothy 2:24-26 reminds us to:

“… not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses, and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will".

-------

[i] The first evolutionary “tree of life” was drawn by German biologist Ernst Haeckel in 1866. Drawings based on it are commonly seen in textbooks and wall charts.
[ii] Johnson has written a whole series of books on the subject (see the Bibliography in Lesson 1). His ground breaking, Darwin on Trial challenged Great Britain’s most esteemed public intellectual and popularizer of evolution, Richard Dawkins and his famous 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker.
[iii] National Geographic, November 2004.
[iv] See Of Pandas and People or other biology textbook for discussion on genetics and mutation theory.
[v] The definition of “species” is widely debated – a dozen or more definitions exist. For purposes herein I use the term “species” to refer to “reproducing populations that possess distinctive features, reproducing those features in fertile offspring” (from Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution, Harvard Press, 1963).
[vi] The peppered moth story is fascinating. Kettlewell was thought the first to offer clear evidence that natural selection actually operated in nature. His experiments were dubbed “Darwin’s missing evidence.” A century before, most of Britain’s peppered moths were light-colored, matching the predominant tree and rock background of their environment. They were well camouflaged from their bird predators. As the industrial revolution progressed, the proportion of dark colored moths within the total population became increasingly great. Kettlewell’s experiments showed that in polluted areas, where the background was dark, the dark moths were far less visible to their major predators and survived better than the light colored ones. Almost every textbook that deals with evolution re-tells the peppered moth story and illustrates it with photographs. The problem, however, is that since 1980’s Kettlewell’s experiments have been shown to be seriously flawed. Even more disturbing is that the photographs shown in the textbooks have been fraudulently staged. Honest evolutionists are now embarrassed by the peppered moth story. But that doesn’t stop textbook publishers and media presentations from continuing to use the story as evidence for Darwinian macroevolution. The fraud and controversy is not reported.
[vii] The Beak of the Finch, A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Weiner and Grant, (Alfred A. Knopf, 1994).
[viii] Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, p17, (1984).
[ix] Evolutionists D. Johansen, M. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, p.363 (1981).
[x] Evolutionist Woodruff, Evolution: The Paleobiological View, Science, Vol. 208 (1980).
[xi] Quoted in Darwin’s Enigma, p.78.
[xii] Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, (W. W. Norton, 1980).
[xiii] According to G. G. Simpson in The Meaning of Evolution the answer is simple. This convergence comes about through the “selection of random mutations.” That is pure circular reasoning!
[xiv] Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 6th ed., (Collier Books, 1962), p.468.
[xv] Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (London); Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum (New York City); Dr. David M. Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago); Dr. David Pilbeam, curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale and professor of anthropology at Harvard (Boston); Dr. Donald Fisher, state paleontologist, New York State Natural History Museum.
[xvi] For example, in the article entitled, Was Darwin Wrong? No!, which appeared in the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, the credibility of Darwin’s theory was compared to the credibility of the theory that the Earth orbits the sun; or that electricity works.
Eugenie Scott, the director of National Center for Science Education, the largest lobby for defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, routinely tells reporters that Intelligent Design is not science and that it is just a sham to get creationism into the public school curriculum.
[xvii] The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin, 1871.
[xviii] Adapted from an essay by Chris Fisher, Ph.D., The Antropocentric Cosmos: Human Uniqueness and the Natural Sciences in the September 13, 2004 Center for Bioethics and Culture Network newsletter.
[xix] See E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology, and On Human Nature, (Harvard University Press, 1975 & 1978).

2005-01-20T16:40:00.000-08:00

Lesson 5 – The Origin of Life

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures.”
-- Genesis 1:20

In some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity present … a protein was formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.

-- Charles Darwin

Chemical evolution

Evolutionary “origin of life” research says that all living (organic) molecules were created by the naturalistic encounter of various non-living (inorganic) chemicals and energy sources. This theory is called chemical or molecular evolution and is the starting point for the neo-Darwinian explanation of the origin of life.

Have you seen pictures of a 1950’s era high school biology classroom? Hanging on the walls are drawings of early planet earth, and a landscape strewn with smoking volcanoes. There is a dark cloudy atmosphere, punctuated by spectacular lightning bolts above a turbulent ocean of chemical slime -- the so-called “primordial ooze” or “prebiotic soup”. Within the slime, the molecules are randomly colliding, supposedly forming the early building blocks of life. Have you seen pictures of the 1950’s era laboratory chemists with their test tubes and flasks attempting to simulate these imagined conditions of the early earth atmosphere? Do you recall the reports of the “creation of life in a test tube?” Today, this sort of “origin of life” research has arrived at a massive dead-end, but the myth of the creation of life out of the primordial ooze continues in spite of the massive amount of evidence that shows otherwise.

The “primordial ooze”

Although Darwin himself did not directly extend his theory in the origin of the species to include the origin of life’s basic molecules, the possibility that life’s emergence could be explained in naturalistic evolutionary terms had occurred to him. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1888), his son Francis Darwin, himself a most respected scientist, quotes his father as saying: “It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present. But, if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, and electricity present, that a protein was formed ready to undergo still more complex changes...”

In 1924, A. I. Oparin, a Russian chemist, proposed a theory about the origin of life. In 1928 that theory was extended by the English chemist J.B.S. Haldane. These hypotheses generally state:

The “primoidal ooze” originated over millions of years by the massive accumulation of elements in the ponds, oceans and rivers of early earth. The first cells arose gradually through chemical reactions of the inorganic atoms in the ooze, e.g. hydrogen (H2), water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3).

Ultraviolet light from the sun and other energy sources, e.g., lightning, cosmic rays, volcanic heat, radioactivity, shock waves, tidal forces, etc., converted the inorganic molecules into the organic molecules of life -- amino acids, nucleic acids, simple sugars and other organic compounds. This happened over very long periods of time, strictly by chance and naturalistic laws.

Over more time the organic compounds came together even more so to form the basic building blocks of life, i.e. organic molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA. Subsequently over time, chance plus natural selection evolved these basic building blocks into the complex life forms of the species.

In 1953, Stanley Miller[i] made up a gaseous mixture of inorganic molecules in a test tube simulating the primordial soup and early earth atmosphere, and supplies energy to the experiment with an electrical charge simulating lightning. He was able to convert the inorganic molecules into a couple of amino acids, which are some of the basic organic building blocks. Since that time, 19 out of the 20 amino acids necessary for building a protein; and all five of the chemical bases necessary for creating nucleic acids (the required building blocks of DNA and RNA); and, several important sugars, have been synthesized in the laboratory. Around the same time Sidney Fox, at a University of Miami laboratory, heated mixtures of amino acids which eventually joined together and formed long chains of molecules that vaguely resembled molecular chains known as polypeptides. Fox called these synthesized chains “proteinoids.” They looked somewhat like a bacterial cell and had faint chemical properties of organic molecules (e.g., catalytic activity).[ii] This is the body of experimental evidence that supports the theory of chemical evolution. Many scientists believe that the results of the Miller and Fox experiments provide strong support for the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis. Astronomer Carl Sagan, creator of the popular PBS series Cosmos, said that the Miller experiment was the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life evolved on earth and is likely to be abundant throughout the universe. Unfortunately for these scientists recent experimental evidence lines up strongly against the theory.

Major empirical problems with the theory

After fifty years of work in the laboratory, the primoidal ooze theory has arrived at a dead end.

Geological Evidence -- Although the notion persists at the popular level, and is reported routinely in textbooks, there is no geological evidence to support that there ever was a prebiotic soup. At the ocean bottoms we would expect to find large amounts of hydrocarbon or carbon. We do not. We would expect to find nitrogen containing organic compounds adsorbed on the clay particles. We do not. There is no physical evidence that this soup ever existed. Evolutionary experts Brooks and Shaw have said, “If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various .... organic compounds, amino acids, ..., and the like, or alternately in .... sediments we should find vast amounts of ... (graphite-like materials). ... In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth,” Origin and Development of Living Systems. Few, if any, biology textbooks inform students of this fact.

Early Earth Atmosphere -- Even if there was a prebiotic soup, the concentration of the original chemicals would have been so small that the chemical reactions could not have taken place in a natural setting. The lab experiments that generate these chemicals do not take into consideration an oxygen atmosphere – the current understanding of the early earth atmosphere. If oxygen were present in the early earth atmosphere (even in only miniscule amounts), it would have been impossible for organic compounds to have been produced and accumulated the way they did in the Miller apparatus.[iii] The amino acids would oxidize. If an electrical discharge (e.g., lightning) were introduced into a hydrogen and oxygen atmosphere, the result would have been an explosion and the subsequent destruction of any organic molecules. To avoid this problem it became popular to conceive of an early earth atmosphere with no oxygen. Recent scientific studies, however, discredit that notion. Science believes that oxygen must have been present in the early earth atmosphere -- today oxygen makes up 21% of the atmosphere. Many high school biology textbooks fail to mention the incongruity between the Miller experiment and the current scientific understanding of the early earth’s atmosphere.

Chemical Reactions -- Few evolutionary texts mention the destructive effects that continuous energy bombardment from the sun would have had on any newly formed amino acids: they would have been destroyed immediately upon being formed. Miller biased his experiments by collecting the amino acids in an isolated part of the laboratory apparatus, thus providing a safe harbor for them far away from any destructive sparks. Miller used “intelligent intervention” to avoid ruining his experiment and his theory. Most of today’s textbooks don't mention these destructive effects nor comment on Miller’s “intervention.”

Cross-reaction, another destructive effect, is downplayed in the biology textbooks. These are the detrimental chemical reactions (by-products) which would have taken place in the soup. The laboratory experimenters conveniently siphon off the destructive chemical by-products (again showing the necessity of intelligent intervention), never allowing the soup to reach equilibrium, i.e., the final “settled-down” state. That’s cheating! In reality, the synthesis of life molecules would have been short-circuited at every moment by cross-reactions. As soon as equilibrium was reached, the steady-state concentrations of amino acids would have been so small that any chemical evolution would have been impossible -- not just infinitely unlikely!

“Left-handedness” – Perhaps the most devastating of all the disconfirming chemical evidence against molecular evolution is the “handedness” (homochirality) of the organic molecules that make-up life: the amino acids that make-up the any protein are always “left-handed.” (Certain sugars are always “right-handed.”) Biochemists are baffled by this. To illustrate, open your left hand with palm facing toward you and fingers spread (thumb is pointing to the left). Your hand represents the structure of an amino acid; your fingers and thumb represent the molecules. Similarly, open your open right hand (thumb is pointing to the right). This hand represents the structural “mirror image” of the same amino acid molecule. Both amino acid molecules have identical chemical properties, differing only in the physical placement of the hydrogen atom (represented by the thumbs of both hands). Life chemistry operates only with 100% left-handed amino acids. If just one amino acid molecule were to be right-handed the entire life process shuts down. A living organism would be paralyzed or die! It would be like throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of a machine. Left-handed and right-handed amino acids have the exact same chemical properties, but operate the life machine totally differently.

In the Miller-type experiments, the amino acids naturally produced are always 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed (called a racemic mixture). In the laboratory scientists cannot produce the 100% left-handed amino acids required by life chemistry unless they purposefully intervene. That is, nature alone produces a racemic (50/50) mixture. To get the 100% left-handedness mixture requires intelligent intervention. Scientists are unable to understand how nature’s preferential mechanism for handedness developed. This is a devastating problem for the theory of chemical evolution and is grossly underplayed in the literature. This issue alone is sufficient to discredit the entire notion of chance molecular evolution.

Fox used only left-handed amino acids in his experiments to make his “proteinoids.” His intelligent intervention is, in effect, cheating! Many scientists now agree that Fox’s use of selected and purified amino acid mixtures is “not realistic.” Even if nature could produce a proteinoid, it is a trivial chemical achievement as compared to the making of a protein. It is like comparing the complexity of forming a raindrop by natural law to the complexity of manufacturing a computer by intelligent design. Furthermore, for life chemistry to operate, evolution must additionally synthesize DNA and RNA. These molecules are almost inconceivably more complex than a protein. Knowledgeable and honest scientists now admit that it is beyond human imagination to “manufacture” the building blocks of life chemistry by natural selection.

It should be pretty clear to the unbiased observer that however life on earth began the usually conceived notion that life emerged from a prebiotic soup of organic chemicals by natural selection is an impossible hypothesis -- a myth of the neo-Darwinian Synthesis. Even Miller was quoted in a 1991 Scientific American article as saying, “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick said in his book, Life Itself, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” Yet, the myth of the prebiotic soup continues to persist in popular and educational venues.

The probability of random chance forming a life molecule[iv]

Fortunately, because it would be “almost a miracle” for life to form by random chance, that notion is out of vogue right now among scientists. Unfortunately, however, the idea is very much alive at the popular level. For many college students who speculate about these things, chance is still the hero. “They think if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, life is somehow going to emerge … It’s true that this scenario is still alive among people who don’t know the facts, but there is no merit to it,” says Steven Meyer, Director and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Washington. For example, to “create” a minimal protein you have to have at least 75 amino acids. You need the right bonds between the amino acids and they must all be left-handed; then they need to be linked in a specified sequence. Calculate the odds of this happening by chance for just this one protein and you find it to be in the range of 1 in 10125 (that means 10 with 125 zeroes after it). In practical terms, this means it is impossible, e.g., 1 chance in 1050 can mathematically be translated “impossible” (there are only 1080 atomic particles in the entire universe). And that is only one protein molecule. A minimally complex cell would need 300-500 protein molecules. Says Meyer, “To suggest chance against those odds is really to evoke a naturalistic miracle." It’s a confession of ignorance. It’s another way of saying, ‘We don’t know.’”

Self-organization theories

Because of the strong evidence against prebiotic natural selection, many origin-of-life theorists after the mid-1960’s attempted to address the problem of the origin of life in new ways. Some suggested that the laws of nature and chemical attraction may themselves be responsible. They argued that just as electrostatic forces draw a sodium ion (Na+) and a chlorine ion (Cl-) to form the highly ordered patterns within a crystal of table salt (NaCl), so too might the amino acids automatically arrange themselves to form proteins. Hence, the origin of life might have been “biochemically predestined” by chemical attraction.[v] Others argued that living systems might have organized themselves as some “open systems” in nature have been observed to do. For example, gravity producing highly ordered vortices in a draining bathtub.[vi] Others have hope that sophisticated computer simulation models will reveal that a system of simple chemicals can reach a critical level of diversity and connectedness and undergo a dramatic “phase transformation” combining into larger molecules of increasing complexity and catalytic capability.[vii]

What does the evidence reveal?

The most prominent early advocate of biochemical predestination, Dean Kenyon, now repudiates his own theory as both incompatible with empirical findings and theoretically incoherent. First, differing chemical attractions do not explain the multiplicity of amino acid sequences that exist in naturally occurring proteins, nor does it explain the sequential ordering of any single protein. In the case of RNA and DNA, this point is made even more dramatically. While energy in a system can create patterns of symmetric order such as whirling vortices, there is no evidence that energy alone can “encode” the specified amino acid sequences necessary to form life molecules.[viii] The reason? The mechanism to encode anything requires information processing. To explain the origin of life in this manner requires one to explain the origin of the information required. The properties of matter do not (and can not) explain the complexity and specificity of information. It simply exceeds the creative capacities of matter and energy to do so. The origin of biochemical information is the “missing link” the naturalists so desperately seek. Information arises only from “intelligent agency.” Molecular biology has revealed that a living system is an intelligently engineered high-tech system with information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feedback loops; and signal transducing circuitry. Everywhere you look in the biological cell you find a complex, mutually interdependent network of parts all operating in accordance with the information it has been encoded by.

Information theory

Information theorist Hubert Yockey and chemist Michael Polanyi have shown that even if you could come up with a naturalistic theory that explained some of the encoding within a DNA sequence, it would not contain information at the level of complexity required for life functions. Rather it would be a simple repetitive pattern and not the irregular pattern required to convey information. Consider the 5 letter repetitive pattern (1) T (2) O (3) SPACE (4) B (5) E. With a reasonable probability we could find a naturalistic mechanism that “by chance” or “natural law” could form the sequence “TO BE” -- e.g., by throwing Scrabble letters on the floor until it happened. But you will never find a naturalistic mechanism that could generate Hamlet. Imagine doing that by throwing Scrabble letters on the floor! Furthermore, the DNA molecule is more like a library than it is just one book in it. DNA stores the detailed instructions to assemble over 20,000 different kinds of proteins that make-up the 100 trillion cells that comprise our body. There are over 3,000,000,000 codes that make up the human genome – equivalent to more than 75,000 newspaper pages of printed codes. Bill Gates of Microsoft said, “DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we’ve ever devised.” There is no naturalistic mechanism that generates software programs. Only intelligent agents can do that.

How do you generate information?

When archaeologists discovered the Rosetta Stone, they didn’t think the inscriptions were the result of random chance, natural law, self-organization processes. They did not even consider that (by faith) someday a new miraculous naturalistic mechanism would be discovered.[ix] No! They immediately knew that intelligence created the inscriptions. The same principle is true with DNA. The encoded regions of the DNA molecule have exactly the same properties as a computer code or a programming language. Whenever you find a sequential arrangement that’s complex, but corresponds to a previously known and independent pattern (such as a language)[x], then it is ALWAYS the product of intelligence. Transcriptions on rocks, writing in books, coding in a computer program, and the chemically encoded sequences found in DNA are all designed by intelligence. The presence of this type of information in DNA directly implies an intelligent source generated it. Information is not something derived from material properties -- in a sense, it transcends matter and energy. Naturalistic theories that rely solely on matter and energy are not going to be able to account for information -- only intelligence can. And intelligence is the hallmark of mind. The conclusion is compelling: an Intelligent Mind has literally spelled out the evidence of His existence though the chemical coding in the genetic code. It’s almost as if the Creator autographed every cell! When Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project commented on the decoding of their success he said that human DNA was “our own instruction book, previously known only to God.” And, President Clinton told reporters that scientists were “learning the language in which God created life.”

Just assume chemical evolution is true -- we’ll come up with the evidence later!

Committed naturalistic evolutionists don’t seem dismayed by the impossibility of life molecules forming by chance and undirected natural means. They just assume it must have happened -- otherwise, we would not be here to talk about it. This is obviously circular reasoning (conveniently assuming the conclusion one is trying to prove). They reason that over infinite time the probability of any event occurring (even the creation of the DNA, RNA and protein molecules) is 100% (i.e., it is certain). However, even this “safe harbor” has been taken away from them by big-bang cosmology. Even if the molecular chemistry of evolution could be made to work (which it cannot), there is not infinite time for life to develop on earth. Scientific authorities place the age of the earth at approx. 4.6 billion years old and place life forming around 4 billion years ago. That would leave some 600 million years for the chance process of forming life molecules to succeed. Even "billions of years" is clearly short of the infinite number of years sought for supporting the evolutionary assumptions. In true circular reasoning fashion, however, committed evolutionists when confronted with such evidence calmly conclude that the chemical evolution of life must have been easier than we had supposed since it happened so rapidly on early earth! This is not science, but wishful thinking at best and fairy-tale writing at worst.

Origin-of-life “science” is pure speculation

On July 7, 1999 the featured article in the science section of the San Diego Union-Tribune said, “The fact is origins-of-life-science is in constant flux, an entirely fluid subject awash with bold experimentation and bolder thinking. It does not lack for hypotheses.” May I add, it does not lack for wishful thinking either? Set-back by the lack of evidence for the primordial soup theory, some scientists now speculate that since life couldn’t arise on the surface of early earth, maybe life arose under the earth, or above it in outer space.

Life began underwater or underground
Encouraged by the discoveries of bacteria, fungi and algae in underground rocks, and complex marine creatures living near hot magma oozes at the bottom of the ocean, some scientists speculate that life originated there; energy being supplied by underground volcanoes rather than the sun. The ocean would have provided a shield from the destructive effects of meteors or elements in the atmosphere (such as oxygen). This hypothesis, however, doesn’t address the fundamental issues, viz., the impossibility of the simplest of living cells assembling themselves by chance from inorganic material; the destructive chemical cross-reactions that would necessarily occur; nor the required “left-handedness” of the organic molecules that make up life. Neither does it take into consideration the origination of the information required to encode the required specified amino acid sequences into a protein. It only moves the location for the origination of life.

Life began under the ice
Some scientists are speculating that the levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere 4 billion years ago may not have been sufficient to trap and retain significant heat; hence the earth was very cold. Beneath its ice-covered oceans, hydrothermal vents supplied methane, ammonia and other life-building components. After the ice melted, intense asteroid impact supplied the heat energy required and the naturalistic creation story begins there. Again, the basic issues of the origination of life chemistry and information are never addressed – just pushed off to another place.

Life began as an extraterrestrial
Neither does this speculation explain the origin of life. It translates the event to some planet in a far off galaxy about which even less (actually nothing) is known. It offers even less explanatory power than the prebiotic soup theory it supposedly replaces.

What should we conclude? Is there an alternative explanation?

What does the empirical data tell us about the theory of chemical evolution? Despite all the selective and guided experimentation in the laboratory; the computer simulation models; and, despite the speculation regarding the origination of the elements of life and energy -- what researchers really end up proving is that is takes intelligence to direct the processes that originate life. An intelligent lab worker initially conceives the goal for an experiment. The lab worker guides the experiment to achieve his goal. Experience and science teach that information-rich systems are the result of intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones. Yet origin-of-life biology artificially limits its explanatory search to naturalistic causation rather than seeking out the ramifications of intelligent agency. The general persistence in defending chemical evolution is based on an ideological commitment quite apart from science. It takes as much (more?) faith to believe that the chance encounter of molecules over a long period of time would create life; or that inorganic molecules miraculously and spontaneously self-organize or undergo phase transformations to create the building blocks of life -- than it does to believe in intelligent design. We should not be timid about reaching a conclusion of intelligent design and building upon it. Also, there is no reason for science not to remain open to the possibility that the “God-hypothesis” may be true. Why not follow the scientific method to discover the truth – wherever the path may lead? That means determining whether a hypothesis is valid or not by evidence and analysis, not by assuming it away; or arbitrarily declaring it “out of bounds;” or pejoratively dismissing it as “religion.”

What does the Scripture teach about creation?

The Bible talks about God as the Creator of all things from cover to cover. A beautiful overview of this is seen in a panorama of verses in Isaiah, chapters 40-66. Verses 40:28; 41:13; 42:5, 8; 43:7; 44:24; 45:9, 12, 18, 22-23; 46:9, 10; 48:11-13; 55:8-9; 65:17,18a; 66:1-2 teach that, in contrast to evolution:

God is an infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, present-everywhere spirit Being who possesses personality and will.

God is self-existent and transcendent. He is uncreated -- apart from, and beyond His creation.

God created space, time, matter and energy, and all living things (plants, animals and human beings) for His own purposes. He is the initial “cause” of all things

God is a Heavenly Father who continually sustains His creation. Mankind is the paragon of His creation. God created man and woman is His own image and He cares for them as a loving Father.

God creates for His own purposes as a Divine Artist, Grand Designer, or a Master Potter would do.

The things He creates may have similar characteristics, but there are major discontinuities (many different “kinds”) in His creation.

The only “common ancestry of all things” is that they all came from the same Creator, not that they evolved from a prior common ancestor.

God determines what survives and what perishes, which explains the fossil record of extinction.

The entire creation exists for a single purpose -- to glorify God.

Oh give thanks to the LORD, call upon His name. All the ultimate causes (gods) of the peoples are non-existent (idols). The LORD made the heavens. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His name. Tremble before Him all the earth. Let the peoples among the nations say, “the LORD reigns.” He is coming to judge the earth. Oh give thanks to the LORD for He is good and His lovingkindness is everlasting. Then say, “Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather us and deliver us from the nations to give thanks to Thy holy name, and glory to Thy praise.” Blessed be the LORD God from eternity to eternity. Then all the people said, “Amen!” and praised the LORD.

------

[i] At the time Stanley Miller was a graduate student at the University of Chicago working under Professor Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry.
[ii] In evolutionary theory, Fox’s experiments allegedly demonstrated the Darwinian transformation from amino acids to the threshold of life.
[iii] Miller biased his experiments. He didn’t allow oxygen to be present.
[iv] This and some subsequent sections are based on an interview of Dr. Meyer conducted by Lee Strobel for his book, The Case for a Creator (Zondervan, 2004).
[v] D. Kenyon and G. Steinman, Biochemical Predestination, (McGraw Hill, 1969).
[vi] I. Prigogine and G. Nicolis, Self Organization in Non-equilibrium Systems (Wiley, 1977); I. Prigogine, From Being to Becoming, (Freeman, 1980).
[vii] S. Kauffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, (Oxford University Press, 1995).
[viii] It was popular for a while for scientists to speculate that the RNA molecule was first formed by naturalistic processes and then it evolved into DNA. This hypothesis is also arriving at a dead end. Evolutionist Robert Shapiro, a chemistry professor at NYU, said the idea “must be considered either a speculation or a matter of faith.” Origin-of-life researcher Graham Cairns-Smith said the “many interesting and detailed experiments in this area” have only served to show that that the theory is “highly implausible.”
[ix] Evolutionist Robert Shapiro, in his book, Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, said that one would have to have faith that some previously unknown “magic mineral” would have to be discovered.
[x] Intelligent design proponents call this “specified complexity,” i.e., a sequential arrangement that is complex, but it corresponds to a previously known and independent pattern.

2005-01-17T15:14:00.000-08:00

Lesson 4 – In the Beginning – God or Particles?
The Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle

It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands.
- Isaiah 45:12

By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding He set the heavens in place.
-- Proverbs 3:19

The first question any worldview must answer is how did the universe begin? In the past few decades, science has completely reversed itself on the question of the origin of the universe. For thousands of years most cultures as well as the scientific community believed the universe to be eternal. The idea that the universe had a beginning was an article of religious faith standing in lonely opposition to firmly established science. Only in the 20th century did several lines of scientific evidence converge so that secular scientists came to believe that the universe had a beginning. Those main lines of evidence were:

1. Einstein’s equations of General Relativity predicted that space and time had an origin therefore the universe was not eternal.

2. Modern telescopes and instrumentation revealed that all the stars and galaxies are moving away from one another (the red shift) and by projecting this expansion back in time one must conclude that the universe had a beginning – a point in time of creation.

3. Philosophically, two of the most fundamental laws of physics -- the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics -- implied that something external to the universe must have caused it to come into being a finite time ago:

1st Law – “Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.” That is, the universe just can’t create itself. Something cannot come into physical existence “out of nothing.” Since matter is real, its very existence is evidence that a transcendent (beyond nature) process created it.

2nd Law – The universe is running down, like a wound-up clock, to a “heat death.” There had to be a time when it was wound up initially, otherwise it would have “died” by now. The unavoidable conclusion -- there must have been a “beginning time” for the universe.

Creation is no longer merely a matter of religious faith. Today it is a legitimate scientific conclusion that is based on the most straightforward reading of the evidence.

The lines of scientific evidence coalesced in the 1960’s leading to the formulation of what is known as The Big Bang Theory. The name evokes images of Genesis 1 and would deliver a near fatal blow to Naturalism if the evidence was ever taken to its logical conclusion. Naturalists simply have no way to avoid the challenge posed by the big bang without twisting themselves into impossible logical contortions. Therefore, to escape the obvious conclusion many simply ignore the discussion. Others, redefine “science” in such a way that discussion is suppressed -- the ACLU approach. Others co-mingle the philosophy of Naturalism with science. Others just attack the implications as “philosophically repugnant.” Some acknowledge the implication of a god that might have started the whole thing, but certainly is out of the picture after that (the Deist approach). Others attempt to tweak their theories to disprove the implications of the big bang -- even Einstein attempted this approach! Some craft fanciful tales such as imaginary time or quantum fluctuations (the universe popping into existence out of nothing), or infinite number of universes, or self-generation, or endless oscillations. None of these so-called theories carry as much credence as the “God Hypothesis.”

A second major line of scientific evidence supporting the Christian worldview is known as Intelligent Design. The message Dave and Katy Mulholland caught at Epcot (Lesson 1) was that Planet Earth “just happened” to be the right size, “just happened” to be the right distance from the sun for life to arise; and, through a process of random mutation and natural selection (Darwinian evolution), humans “just happened” to appear on the scene. In other words, planet Earth and human beings are nothing more than cosmic accidents. But, are all these coincidences really just…coincidences? Or, did Someone design the universe that way? When Dave Mulholland investigated Intelligent Design he found that a dramatic shift in scientific thinking had taken place the last few decades. Today science has dramatic evidence that the universe and life itself is the product of purpose and design. From the perspective of the space age, it has become clearer that Earth is unique, not just some common planet with common conditions for life. Scientists are discovering that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what it must be in order to support life. Science has dubbed this phenomenon the Anthropic Principle.[i]

To date there have been dozens of fundamental variables and constants discovered that must be exactly what they are or the universe doesn’t work and life is not possible. These include – the earth being just the right size and just the right distance from the sun; the molecular structure of water being just right; the velocity of the big bang explosion being just right, and the force of gravity being just right. That the particles that make up the atom are just the right size with just the right charge, possessing just the right magnetic properties and held together with just the right nuclear forces. The statistical probability of all these “just the rights” happening without the intelligent intervention of a transcendent power is literally zero. There is no natural explanation, no natural law to account for this extraordinarily precise alignment of variables that make the earth capable of supporting life. If anything, it appears as if the laws of physics were exquisitely calibrated from the outset for the creation of human life. Scientists have no way of explaining it on naturalistic grounds and when they attempt to they become speculative at best and illogical at worst. Some speculate there may be an infinite number of universes of which ours just happens to be the one that works. Others speculate the “universe wants to be known,” ascribing human characteristics to it. One honest scientist, Patrick Glynn put it this way after studying the anthropic principle, “The main-stream scientific community has in effect shown its attachment to the atheistic ideology of the random universe to be in some respects more powerful than its commitment to the scientific method itself.”

From a Christian worldview the evidence points to the transcendent God of Genesis 1. Christian scientists are beginning to emerge and give credible scientific scholarship showing that complex physical phenomena and life forms are the product of Intelligent Design and are not the product of chance or natural law. William Dembski in his book, The Design Inference, Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), gives powerful mathematical evidence the universe was designed. This can become a starting point for a scientific discussion embracing a biblical worldview of creation.

As Christians we need to turn around the perception that we are opposed to science. We must become knowledgeable about modern cosmology if we have any hope of engaging our culture on this topic. When Paul talked to the intellectuals on Mars Hill in Acts 17, he was knowledgeable about their worldview, including their poets, and argued for his worldview by first engaging them in theirs. Understanding the implications of the big bang theory (even if you don’t believe in it yourself) and the anthropic principle, and being able to articulate some simple scientific principles will help turn around the insidious stereotype of the Bible-believing Christian as a scientific reactionary. Instead, we will be in the position of being able to give good answers to the opposition using good science. Like Paul, we will subsequently be able to intelligently present the gospel message to a group that otherwise might never be reached.

The Big Bang

In the 1920’s American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) began meticulously mapping the universe galaxy by galaxy with the most powerful telescope in the world at the time – the 100 inch telescope at the Mount Wilson observatory above Los Angeles. Before the 20th century, the basic method of calculating the distance and motion of stars and galaxies had changed little for 200 years. By Hubble’s time, however, three remarkable tools for examining the light emitted from the stars had been developed and radically changed astronomical measurements:

Fraunhofer-lines. The light spectrum emitted by a star reveals its precise chemical make-up.

Doppler-effect. A way of analyzing the starlight spectrum which enables the calculation of the speed and direction of the movement of distant stars and galaxies.

“Twinkle-stars” (known as Cepheids). These are stars which literally “twinkle,” i.e., they vary predictably in the intensity of light they give out from one time period to the next. An astronomer can measure the distance and brightness of the Cepheids closest to earth. This measurement becomes a “yardstick” by which the distance to the Cepheids contained in remote galaxies can be measured.

With these tools Hubble determined:

How far away each galaxy was from the earth by finding the Cepheid stars in it.

What kind of stars (i.e., chemical make-up) each galaxy contained by analyzing their Fraunhofer-lines in the light spectrum.

The direction and speed each the galaxy was moving by the Doppler effect in the light spectrum of the stars.

Hubble and his team patiently isolated the light from each distant galaxy, analyzed its spectrum and built up a complete picture of its composition, distance and movement. The most amazing thing they discovered was that not only were the galaxies much farther away from us than anyone had ever imagined, but that all the galaxies in the universe were moving away from planet earth.

By analyzing the Cepheid stars Hubble discovered that many galaxies were billions of light-years[ii] away from earth. By the Doppler-effect he discovered that the farther away a galaxy, the faster it was moving away;[iii] and that it was moving in a predictable, not random fashion. A model of this motion can be pictured by inflating a balloon which has spots marked on its surface representing the galaxies. As you blow-up the balloon the skin stretches and all the spots (galaxies) move farther away from each other with the “galaxies” the farthest away moving away the fastest.

What Hubble had discovered was so spectacular and so unexpected that its full significance was not immediately grasped. An expanding universe was a difficult concept for the majority of agnostic scientists to embrace since they had become firmly wedded to the idea of an infinite, unchanging and eternal universe.

Einstein's theories of relativity

A few years prior to Hubble’s work, Albert Einstein published several papers of enormous significance – on Special relativity (1905) and General relativity (1916). Among the radical and revolutionary ideas[iv] derived from his equations of relativity was one that the universe was simultaneously expanding and decelerating. There is only one physical phenomenon that behaves in that manner – an explosion. When a grenade, for example, is detonated the pieces of the grenade expand outward, but as they do they slow down (decelerate). Einstein’s theory suggested that the universe originated in an initial explosion! If that were true then sometime in the past the universe must have had a beginning. And, there must have been a place (called the “singularity”) and a moment in time at which the explosion began. Thus the Big Bang theory was born.

If the entire universe originated out of nothing from an initial explosion (an effect), then that “effect” must have had a “cause(r).” What or who then was the “cause(r)?” The theological implications were monumental. Atheism and Darwinism were based on an (incorrect) assumption that the universe was infinite and hence there was no need for a Creator. But, now science had discovered that the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe must have had a cause for its existence. Common sense as well as empirical science tells us that what begins to exist must have a cause for its existence. This is the age-old cosmological argument for God’s existence.[v]

Einstein’s worldview of an infinite universe initially kept him from adopting such a conclusion. Rather than change his worldview, in 1917 he hypothesized a new force in physics that would perfectly cancel out the deceleration and expansion factors in his General Theory. But, this attempted patch did not hold up. In 1929 Edwin Hubble proved his theory from measurements on 40 different galaxies and demonstrated that the expansion was exactly predicted by Einstein’s general relativity equations. Einstein grudgingly abandoned his hypothesized force and acknowledged “the necessity for a beginning” and the presence of “a superior reasoning power.”[vi] Unfortunately, Einstein’s “superior reasoning power” was not the God of the Bible. Other scientists, and many committed atheists like Cambridge University’s Fred Hoyle, tried desperately to come up with other explanations which would eliminate a moment of “creation,” but to no avail.[vii] Today there is no doubt among astronomers that the Big Bang occurred. But the exact mechanism of galaxy-formation, and whether or not the expanding universe keeps expanding forever, stabilizes, or collapses back on itself, remains in question. In any case, astronomers who are not drawing theistic conclusions are becoming rarer.

Background radiation (the “afterglow” of the big bang)

In 1964, Nobel laureates Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson of Bell Labs discovered the “remains” of the initial big bang explosion – an "afterglow" of the intense heat generated by the initial explosion. Measurable background radiation was predicted to exist, even after billions of years of cooling, to be constant and detectable in all directions at just a few degrees warmer than the lowest possible temperature (-273o C). In 1992 the COBE satellite discovered this “afterglow” and has provided additional strong evidence that the galaxies (and hence the stars and planets) were formed out of the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking called it, “the discovery of the century, if not of all time.” George Smoot said, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe … It’s like looking at God.”

This is widely acknowledged as the strongest proof yet for the big bang theory. In 1994 the most powerful optical instrument of all time, the dual 400-inch Keck telescope in Hawaii opened. Astronomers have since been able to verify that the cooling-down curve of the Big Bang precisely matches what the theory predicts. The Hubble space telescope provided a stop-action view of galaxy development showing astronomers the epoch before galaxies existed. The building blocks of the universe, i.e., the small clumps of hot young stars of the galaxies, are visible in these images and have given the most compelling visual evidence that the cosmos arose from a powerful creation event.

Non-Christian testimonies to a “Creator”

Arno Penzias, a Nobel laureate in physics and past director of Bell Labs said, “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

Paul Davies, a widely known professor of mathematical physics said, “The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe.”

Astronomer George Greenstein, “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Mathematical physicist Robert Griffiths, “If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use (anymore).”

Christian opposition to the Big Bang

At the same time atheistic and agnostic scientists are seeing hard evidence for the existence of God in big bang cosmology, many in the evangelical community reject the big bang theory. Their problem stems from the creation date, calculated by big bang cosmology to be approx. 16 billion years ago for the universe, and 5 billion years for the earth. Many Bible-believing Christians find these long ages hard to reconcile with Scripture, particularly with the the 6 “days” of creation in the Genesis account. They interpret the Hebrew word for day “yom” as a literal 24-hour day following the Bishop Ussher chronology.[viii] Therefore, they see the earth as 6,000 to 10,000 years old (in no case more than 50,000 years). Also, some are concerned that allowing for a creation that takes billions of years gives biological evolution sufficient time to work. Hence they conclude that the earth cannot be that old. Many churches and Bible colleges include belief in a young universe and young earth in their statement of faith. Some churches require this belief for leadership positions or membership.

Another objection to big bang cosmology is that its mechanism resembles that of biological evolution and so is rejected out of hand. Cosmological evolution is the process by which the galaxies, stars and planets were formed. According to cosmological evolution, fundamental particles clumped together to form atoms of all the elements,[ix] and the elements combined to form the molecular building blocks of all the matter in the universe. Over time the elements “evolved” by well-known natural laws of nuclear and chemical action to form the galaxies, stars and planet earth. This is seen as too parallel to the chance/natural selection mechanism of biological (macro) evolution, which is rejected by most non-scientific evangelicals.

Many evangelical scientists particularly in the Life-Sciences embrace some form of biological evolution but also hold that the process involves God in some way. This blend of theism and evolutionism is called theistic evolution.

The 6 “days” of creation in Genesis

Genesis 1 states unequivocally that within “six days” God miraculously created the universe and everything in it, including human beings whom He specially created in His image. Young-earth creationists insist that the literal interpretation of the Hebrew word for day “yom” demands a 24-hour day. Old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists say that “yom” can refer to a “time period of indeterminate length” (even billions of years) rather than a 24-hour period.

“Young-earth” creationists say that nothing in Scripture permits a view that the days of creation are anything other than 24-hours. They say that only extra-biblical influences – such as theories of modern science, the views of higher criticism of the Bible, or attacks against the historicity of Scripture would lead one to interpret the days of Genesis 1 as long epochs. They say that old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists have subjugated Scripture to certain theories currently popular in big bang cosmology; and that cosmological theories have been imposed on Scripture as an interpretive grid and allowed to redefine the length of the creation days compromising the authority of Scripture from the start. To them, old-earth creationism and theistic evolution diminish the biblical emphasis on creation by divine fiat, and that sets up a scenario whereby God tinkers with His creation over long periods of time until the world is finally ready to be inhabited by humankind. In their view, such an approach is not evangelical and inevitably leads to people moving away from an evangelical understanding of Scripture.[x]

“Old-earth creationists” and “theistic evolutionists” and others who interpret “yom” as an indefinite time period offer evidence for their position as follows:

The Hebrew word for day, “yom” is used in Scripture to denote any number of time-periods, as it is in English: a 24-hour time period; a 12-hour time period from sunrise to sunset; or an indefinite, but finite period of time, e.g., in the day of Noah; a long time; at the end of the age – all translate from “yom.”

Our idea of a 12 or 24-hour day comes from an astronomical phenomenon, i.e., the rotation of the earth on its axis within the light beam produced by the sun. According to Genesis 1:1-5, “light,” (day) and “darkness” (night) were called into existence and named on Day 1. But the sun was not created until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). If the sun didn’t exist until Day 4, then the understanding of “day” based on the rotation of the earth should be open to interpretations other than the one assumed true by the Ussher chronology.

Moses wrote in Psalm 90:4, “For a 1000 years in your sight is like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night (4 hours).” Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:8, “With the Lord a day (24 hours) is like a 1000 years, and a 1000 years are like a day.” Hosea prophesied that, “after 2 days He will revive us (Israel); on the 3rd day He will restore us.” Commentators over the centuries have noted that this “day” can refer to a year, years, a thousand years, or perhaps a longer period of time.

In the Genesis account, God’s 7th day (yom) of creation is a “day of rest” – the period of time after God’s creative activity. Therefore, we are currently living in that yom and it has been going on since the creation of mankind on Day 6. If the 7th yom refers to such a long period of time, so can the first six.[xi]

Genesis 1:24-31 says that the land mammals as well as Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day. Adam named all the animals and then apparently worked with them long enough to discover that none of them were a suitable helper or companion. It appears that many days’, months’, or perhaps years’ worth of activity was taking place on this 6th yom.

The language and figures of speech used in passages such as: Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, Micah 6:2, Habakkuk 3:6, and 2 Peter 3:5 all depict the immeasurable antiquity of God’s plans and of the earth.

The Hebrew word ‘ereb can mean “evening” or refer to the “ending of a time period.” The Hebrew word boqer, translated as “morning” can be interpreted as the “beginning” or “dawning” of a time period[xii] such as the “dawning of a new age.”

Exodus 20:10-11 is often given as proof positive for the 24-hour day interpretation, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth … but He rested on the seventh (the Sabbath day).” However “Sabbath” can also refer to a full year, e.g., the Sabbath year of Leviticus 25:4. Sometimes it refers to 7 X 7 = 49 years (see Leviticus 25:11). The pattern established in Exodus 20 is the principle that “one out of every seven “yoms” is to be set aside to honor God. It does not necessarily establish a pattern of 24-hour days. Age-long creation days can fit the pattern just as well.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution is a term given to the idea that God uses evolution (in some fashion) as the mechanism to create the heavens, the earth, and all the species of life. God gave, and continues to give, existence to His creation which He gifted from the beginning with the capabilities to bring forth all the forms, processes, and events we observe.

Theistic evolutionists vary greatly in how they believe God intervenes in the evolutionary processes, and their varied beliefs are influenced by the subtle details of their particular theological orientation and/or their scientific training. Most think that biological evolution has great explanatory power and has proven effective in generating testable hypotheses in a wide range of scientific disciplines. They believe that new scientific discoveries and new models are progressively closing many previous gaps in our knowledge and understanding of evolutionary history and mechanisms. While many unanswered questions remain, they accept that biological evolution occurs (random mutation and natural selection). Most theistic evolutionists rely on God’s intervention to explain certain unique aspects of evolution which are currently unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable by science. For example, the origin of life, consciousness, and the soul; or major leaps in development, such as mankind from the lower animals.

Life scientists in this category think that common descent of all living things (common ancestry) is well-supported by diverse lines of evidence in geology, paleontology, biology, and genetics; and that evolutionary processes are not antithetical to God's creative action. They think that nothing in Scripture provides a theological basis for rejecting the descent of all living beings from a common ancestor, including humans. However, this view is problematic to many students of an inerrant Bible.

Most theistic evolutionists think there is an inherent degree of randomness in nature that God built in from the beginning. To some this gives theological support to the notion of man’s free will. Some think that quantum mechanics reveals that the universe has a fundamental random or probabilistic aspect to it, even though this continues to be hotly debated. Since quantum systems are, in one way or another, intrinsically unpredictable, this leads them to argue that God uses evolution to direct matter and energy toward the end He desires, but in a manner which seems unpredictable and random to us. In actuality, however, it involves the hand of God.

An excellent point-counterpoint comparison of young-earth creationism, old-earth (progressive) creationism, and theistic evolution is given in, Three Views on Creation and Evolution, by J. P. Moreland & John Mark Reynolds, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1999).

Naturalism’s objections to a creation event

Despite the many scientists who see God as the Personal Agent who created the universe through the Big Bang, atheists and agnostics who are committed to naturalism strive to come up with alternative theories about the creation event and how “something” could be created out of “nothing.”

Some of these theories postulate the origin of the universe as a “fluctuation in the energy of the primordial vacuum.” A “quantum vacuum” plays a role very analogous to that of God in the biblical doctrine of creato ex nihilo, i.e., it brings the universe into existence without a material cause. These models were popular in the 1970’s but today they do not find wide acceptance, even being abandoned by their original proponents. It is sobering to note how eagerly and uncritically theories like this have been adopted by popular science writers as plausible scenarios for the appearance and evolution of our universe, even long after their demise.

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, (Bantam Books, 1988), world-famed physicist Stephen Hawking describes a model of the universe that is “completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just BE.” Hawking says that his theory “has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe…. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?” More recently Hawking claimed that in his model, the universe “would quite literally be created out of nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe.”

The problems with his claim are numerous. First of all, Hawking’s model evokes imaginary numbers[xiii] for the time variable in Einstein’s equations. Imaginary quantities in science are without physical significance. This is a mathematical trick that is helpful in the manipulation of formulas, but has no physical significance. It makes no more sense to speak of imaginary time than it does to speak of imaginary readers of this paper. Also, Hawking fails to consider the philosophical basis of Euclidian geometry upon which his theory rests. It appears that philosophical and/or psychological factors, rather than scientific ones, are driving the formulation of these “theories.”

One can only be bewildered at how uncritically the popularizers of science have accepted Hawking’s claim to have eliminated the need for a Creator. Exuberant John Gribbin exclaims,[xiv] “Hawking’s universe holds out the prospect of combining General Relativity and cosmology in one grand theory of creation… There is no need to invoke miracles, or new physics, to explain where the universe came from….It is now possible to give a good scientific answer to the questions, ‘Where do we come from?’ without invoking .. God… It is the metaphysicians who are out of a job.”

In reality, all attempts to explain how material effects could arise out of nothing (e.g., a “quantum vacuum”); or by employing a mathematical expediency (viz., “imaginary time”) have failed. If the universe began with an initial cosmological singularity, then the kalam cosmological argument is the best logical deduction that the cause of the origin of the universe is a transcendent Personal Agent.

By 1997, Dr. Hawking had apparently softened on his imaginary time explanation. In his famous 1997 TV science documentary and companion book, Stephen Hawking’s Universe, The Cosmos Explained, (Basic Books, 1997), he said in the Foreward, “The laws of science that we have discovered show how one event is caused by another. It is natural to ask: What happens as one follows this causal chain of events back in time? Is there a first cause or does the chain go back forever? This is the chicken and egg question. The remarkable discovery that we have made this century is that there is indeed a first event, the Big Bang, which is maybe more like an egg than a chicken, though not really like either. At the Big Bang, the universe and time itself came into existence, so this is the first cause. If we could understand the Big Bang we would know why the universe is what it is.”

The Anthropic Principle

As scientists probe the complexities of the universe from the microscopic to the macroscopic; with the electron microscope to the Keck telescope, they eventually come to a remarkable observation -- that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what it needs to be in order to support life. In other words, if the universe were “tweaked” slightly some other way, it would turn into an inhospitable place and life would not be possible. Listen to what world-class agnostic scientists have concluded --

Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton: “As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known we were coming.”[xv]

Sir Fred Hoyle of Great Britain: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”[xvi]

Paul Davies: “A clear inspection shows that the Earth is endowed with still more amazing “conveniences.” Without the layer of ozone above the atmosphere, deadly ultraviolet radiation from the sun would destroy us, and in the absence of a magnetic field, cosmic subatomic particles would deluge the Earth’s surface. Considering that the Universe is full of violence and cataclysms, our own little corner of the cosmos enjoys a benign tranquility. To those who believe that God made the world for mankind, it must seem that all these conditions are in no way a random or haphazard arrangement of circumstances, but reflect a carefully prepared environment in which humans can live comfortably, a pre-ordained ecosystem into which life slots naturally and inevitably—a tailor-made world.”[xvii]

Stephen Hawking: “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. …One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science, or as support for the strong anthropic principle.”[xviii]

The Anthropic Principle states that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common -- these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of supporting life. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth. It says that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what it must be in order to support life.

For a familiar example, take water. Unlike most other substances, when water freezes, it expands and floats. If water didn’t have this unique property, then in cold weather, lakes and rivers would freeze all the way down to the bottom, and all fish would die.

Or think about the position of our planet. If Earth were only slightly closer to the sun, it would be too hot to support life. But if Earth were farther away from the sun, it would be too cold to support life. Isn’t it a marvelous “coincidence” that our planet is just where it is in the solar system?

Another cosmic “coincidence” is the strength of gravity. Assuming that the universe began with a big bang, if the force of gravity had been just slightly stronger, that extra tug would long ago have pulled the cosmos together and caused it to collapse in on itself. On the other hand, if the force of gravity had been just the tiniest bit weaker, then it wouldn’t have been strong enough to condense the original gas cloud into stars and galaxies.

The fact that gravity is just the force needed to create the universe is, in the words of one scientist, “a gigantic fluke–or divine intervention.”

It’s the same with electrical force. Every tree, every blade of grass is made of atoms, which contain electrons and protons. The electron has an electrical charge that balances exactly the charge of the proton. What would happen if they weren’t precisely balanced? If, say, the electron carried more charge than the proton, every atom in the universe would be negatively charged. Since like charges repel, the atoms would repel each other, and the universe would explode apart.

The anthropic principle makes a chance creation so improbable as to be absurd. Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross lists 47 specific physical phenomena that must be “just right” for life to be possible (see his website www.reasons.org). Dr. Ross concludes that “Divine fine-tuning seems incontrovertible.”[xix]

How does a Christian put all this together?

The biblical view of creation is that God created the world. The Bible is not in conflict with science; rather it is in conflict with any worldview that starts without a creator. Equally committed and sincere Christians have struggled with the interpretation of God’s process of creation and reconciling that with what we observe in nature through God’s general revelation. They have come to differing conclusions, which is to be expected as Genesis 1 & 2 does not give very many details of the process of creation. Whatever direct evidence remains of the creation events is very old and subject to interpretation. The Life Application Bible, (Tyndale House Publishers, 1991) reminds us that students of the Bible and of science should avoid polarizations and black/white thinking. Students of the Bible must be careful not to make the Bible say what it doesn’t say, and students of science must not make science say what it doesn’t say. The most important aspect of the continuing debate is not the process of creation, but the origin of creation. The world is not the product of blind chance and probability; God created it.

I have alluded to three dominant interpretations of the Genesis 1-11 passages. Of course, there is a spectrum of in-between and over-and-above positions as well. Much depends on how one chooses to interpret the Hebrew word for “day” – “yom.”

1. Young-earth creation: God created the heavens and the earth and all it contains in six, 24-hour yom some 6,000 to 50,000 years ago.

2. Old-Earth (progressive) creation: God created the heavens and earth in six indeterminate periods of time “yom” starting perhaps some 16 billion years ago as modern big bang cosmology proposes. God specially created man some 6,000 to 50,000 years ago.

3. Theistic evolution: God is the ultimate Creator of everything and He chose to use evolution (even biological evolution) as the mechanism for the creation of the universe and life in it.

Unfortunately, within the evangelical church there is much acrimonious debate among Christians who so strongly align themselves with one of the three positions that they forget who the enemy is. It certainly is not each other. It is the opposing naturalistic worldview that says God is irrelevant to these discussions. I encourage Christians to spend their debate time with non-Christians on whether or not God or Nature is the creator of everything. We should argue that “something cannot be created out of nothing” by natural means, and offer positive evidence that the God-hypothesis best fits the observable facts.

Our biblical mandate is to give one another the benefit of the doubt; and do so in a loving way. I think we should approach the dialog something like this:

Among Christians: Listen carefully to the other side and prayerfully consider what they are saying. Stick with what you currently believe unless the Holy Spirit convicts you to change your position. Learn the other positions so you can understand why a fellow Christian might hold it. Debate in a loving way, but show grace to those who disagree with you.

With non-Christians: Respond with something along the following lines: All Christians agree that God created the heavens and the earth. The real issue is not the process of evolution, nor the age of the earth, but that God not Nature created the material world and mankind. Some Christians believe that God created the universe instantaneously; some in six 24-hour days, some in six epochs of time. New discoveries in science, i.e., modern cosmology, give much support to creationism. It agrees with the Bible that a creation event occurred (big bang), and that the universe and Plant Earth is uniquely finely tuned to support life (anthropic principle).

------

[i] From the Greek “anthropos” meaning “man.” The term "anthropic principle" was first introduced in 1973 during the celebration of Copernicus’ 500th birthday as if to proclaim that humanity holds a special place in the universe after all.
[ii] A “light-year” is a standard measurement of astronomical distance. It is the distance traveled by a light beam in one year. Since light travels at approx.186,200 miles per second, a light-year works out to be just over 6 trillion miles.
[iii] This kind of Doppler-effect is referred to as the red-shift. When the light of a star is beamed through a prism (refracted), it reveals its spectrum of colors from red to blue-violet. The Fraunhofer-lines are seen as dark bands in the spectrum. In addition to indicating the precise chemical make-up of the star, the position of these lines tell us if the light source is moving. If the lines are shifted (in frequency) toward the “red end” of the spectrum (lower frequency), the light-source is moving away. If the lines are shifted toward the “blue end” (higher frequency), the light source is moving toward the observer. An analogy is the frequency shift in sound one experiences when an approaching train whistle is blowing. The whistle-sound “appears” to be higher in frequency when approaching and lower in frequency when moving away. The whistle’s actual pitch hasn’t changed at all. Its pitch just “appears” higher or lower because of the motion of the train -- higher pitch (frequency) when approaching, and lower pitch (frequency) when receding. The same is true of light sources, including those astronomical observations of stars and galaxies.
[iv] For example, the speed of light is a universal constant independent of the motion of any reference point; time, length, mass and velocity dilate (stretch) as a function of their motion; mass and energy are equivalent (E=mc2); light beams are deflected by gravitational fields; the gravitational force of a body red-shifts its spectral (Fraunhoffer) lines.
[v] The kalam comological argument for the existence of God was first formulated by medieval Islamic theologian al-Ghazali:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
The only way the universe could have a cause that happens at some indeterminable time in eternity-past, is through the free-will action of a Personal Agent who chooses to create the universe at that point in time.
[vi] Einstein said, “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett (William Sloane Associates, 1948)
[vii] Hoyle proposed the “steady-state” theory which states that in our expanding corner of the universe, as galaxies grew farther and farther apart, new stars would evolve to help fill the gaps left by the expansion. This theory has an obvious problem: Where had the hydrogen come from to make the stars in the first place? It is summarily rejected by most all cosmologists.
[viii] James Ussher (1581-1656) was an Irish Protestant bishop and scholar best known for his chronology of Genesis which dated the creation of the world to 4004 B.C. This dating was inserted into the marginal notes of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible and became entrenched. American Congregational minister and writer Cyrus Scofield (1843-1921) was perhaps the most responsible person for setting the agenda for the modern American fundamentalist movement. His teachings still form the theological core for Bible schools around the world. The Scofield Reference Bible, which adopted dispensational, pre-millennial and pre-tribulational theology, sold over 2 million copies in 1909. In 1917, Bishop Ussher’s 4004 B.C. creation chronology was added to it. By 1967, however, Ussher’s early dating of the creation event was dropped from The New Scofield Reference Bible, but the influence of the earlier editions remains quite strong to this day.

[ix] Elements are the “elemental” chemical substances that compose all matter and are fundamentally composed of atomic particles – protons, neutrons and electrons in varying, but systematic configurations. There are more than 100 elements in the universe (Periodic Table), e.g., hydrogen (H2), helium (He), oxygen (O2), carbon (C), iron (Fe), gold (Au), uranium (U), etc. Atoms of elements can combine to form molecules of more complex substances, e.g., 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen can link up to form 2 molecules of water (H2O). The element carbon (C) has a special place in chemistry because it can link up with itself, as no other element can, to make long molecular chains which are the fundamental chemical building blocks of life (e.g, amino acids, proteins, enzymes, etc.)
[x] The Battle for the Beginning, John MacArthur (W Publishing Group, 2001). Also, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Henry Morris, (Baker Book House, 1984).
[xi] See Psalm 95; Hebrews 4:4-11; John 5:16-18.
[xii] Old Testament Word Studies, William Wilson, (Kregel Publications, 1978); A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT, Brown, Driver & Briggs, (Clarendon Press, 1968); Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Archer & Waltke, (Moody Press, 1980).
[xiii] Imaginary numbers are multiples of the square-root of [–1], denoted by the letter “i.” Imaginary numbers are a mathematical device and do not (and can not) represent physical objects since no “real” number can be the square root of [–1].
[xiv] In Search of the Big Bang, John Gribbin, (Bantam Books, 1986).
[xv] Scientific American, September, 1971, Freeman Dyson.
[xvi] Astrophysics Journal Supplement, Vol. I (1954), Fred Hoyle. See also Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars, (Harper & Row, 1964).
[xvii] Other Worlds, Paul Davies, (Simon & Schuster, 1980).
[xviii] A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, (Bantam Books, 1988).
[xix] The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, (NavPress, 1993).

2005-01-17T14:17:00.000-08:00

Lesson 3 - How Do the Bible and Science Relate?

Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame. - Albert Einstein

The heavens declare the glory of God; and their expanse declares the work of His hands. - Psalm 19:1

Is Science Our Savior?

In their book, How Now Shall We Live? (ch. 26), Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey review the state of this debate. Today many, if not most, Western secular people hold the view (implicitly or explicitly) that science and technology is our salvation, taking us onward and upward along the path to a utopian future. We humans, as the apex of evolution, have the intelligence to control nature and bend it to our purposes. The solution to our social problems therefore lies in our hands, through the exertion of our human intelligence and ingenuity. Because this worldview has no name, no label, no church, and no rituals, most people don’t identify it as a religion, or even a distinctive belief system. It’s simply an assumption of the current Western mind.

This “religion of progress” really took off after Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859. By providing scientific sanction for evolution, Darwin’s theory gave enormous impetus to the idea of endless, universal progress. But it was English philosopher Herbert Spencer, who expanded evolution into the comprehensive philosophy – evolutionism – which covers all of reality from stars to societies. It turned evolution into a gospel and a secular substitute for Christian faith. Faith in progress replaced the doctrine of creation and providence and gave us “scientific” assurance that the universe is not really purposeless. 19th century French philosopher Auguste Comte – the founder of sociology – proposed that all societies pass through three stages of evolution. The most primitive is the theological stage, where people seek supernatural explanations for events; the second is the metaphysical stage, where people explain the world in abstract philosophical concepts; and the highest is the scientific stage, where people find truth though scientific experimentation. Although raised a Catholic, by age 14 Comte announced that he had “naturally ceased believing in God.” He actually founded an alternative religion called the Religion of Humanity, complete with churches and hymns and calendars listing special days for the “saints” of science and philosophy – with himself as its high priest!

Even certain strains of “liberation ideologies”, e.g., Marxism, see science rather than revolution as the source of salvation. The idea of creating a new and improved race is a key component in many forms of scientific utopianism. In the 1930’s geneticist H. J. Muller divided history into three stages: In the first stage, life is completely at the mercy of the environment; in the second stage, human beings appear and reverse the order, learning how to reach out and control the environment; and in the third stage, humans reach inside and control their own nature. Humanity will “shape itself into an increasingly sublime creation – a being beside which the mythical divinities of the past will seem more and more ridiculous,” Muller wrote. This godlike being surveys the entire universe and “setting its own marvelous inner powers against the brute Goliath of the suns and planets, challenges them to contest.” Today we see science turned into salvation. Nobel Prize laureate Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA, wrote: “We can expect to see major efforts to improve the nature of man himself with the next ten thousand years.”

But how does “salvation by science” stack up against reality? Not very well. Science itself gives no moral guidelines. In genetic experimentation, for example, do we want to create a super-Einstein or a super-Mother Teresa? Are we going to create a class of subhuman slaves to do our menial work? Science does not deal with the real issues of morality and values. Remaking human nature genetically would strip people of their dignity and reduce them to commodities. Today technology offers choice and control over the embryo’s traits so that having a child may become more like purchasing a consumer product – a designer baby. What happens when the “product” doesn’t meet the required specification? Will it be disposed of like an unwanted computer? When children become products we manufacture rather than a gift from God we will do irreparable damage to human dignity. It is beginning to happen already.

Many scientists offer uncritical acceptance of genetic engineering. Why? Because they have faith in “inevitable progress” – the Escalator Myth that “change” will always be for the better. But clearly, change can be either good or evil – for improvement or for degeneration. The faith that we can save ourselves through science and technology can be sustained only if we shut our eyes to the human capacity for barbarism. When one considers the supposed evolutionary process requires tens of thousands or millions of years to take us up even one step the evolutionary ladder, the idea that we can control our desired end-result is preposterous. This is utter pie-in-the-sky blind faith. Many thoughtful scientists find it hard to go along with this blind-faith. Physicist Stephen Hawking warns that evolution will not improve the human race quickly enough to temper our aggression and avoid extinction. But instead of turning to God he and others turn their salvation hopes to a civilization of extraterrestrials who may have successfully evolved to a more advanced stage and are willing to help us. Even our government has bought into this hope and has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), scanning the heavens with powerful radio telescopes in the hope of picking up signals from another civilization. The assumption is that if we discover another civilization in space, we will confirm the evolutionary process, and that the supposed advanced civilization will pass on to us their scientific knowledge and save us! This is obviously a religious hope – a hope for the world’s redemption.

Carl Sagan popularized this metaphysical view of friendly and helpful extraterrestrials on his popular PBS TV series, Cosmos. He never explained how an alien race that never had any contact with the Earth would just happen to know what our problems are and how and why they would go about solving them for us. Why don’t the aliens just eat us rather than save us? Disguised as science, this dream is nothing more than magical and wishful thinking – a dream based on the faith that Science is our Savior. None of this scientific over-optimism ever involves an understanding of the sin nature of man, or a change of heart. It assumes that humanity’s problems are not caused by wrong moral choices, but by a lack of knowledge! Sagan promised that the longed-for SETI message will enable us to control nature and society, with no need for dealing with troublesome things like morality. To him, we can control society for its own good through the inviolable laws of “cultural evolution.”

History, however, gives us a more realistic perspective. The Hitlers, Stalins, Husseins, Bin Ladens and Jongs of the world are not short of knowledge that prevent them from doing good. They are simply evil. Bigger and better technology just gives them, and others, bigger and better means to exercise their evil. It is the human heart that determines how we will use science and technology, for evil or for good. We don’t need extraterrestrial messages to give us insight. We already have a message from outer space: “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth,” and “He became flesh and dwelt among us.”

Science

The word “science” is derived from the Latin for “knowledge.” In its broadest and original sense “science” means to pursue knowledge about the nature of reality in a systematic and logical way and follow that path wherever it may lead. Science in this sense is a method of inquiry, classification and testing of knowledge. Its methods improve our common sense by forcing us to be logically consistent. The scientific method extends our reach by stimulating us to empirically observe reality and formulate hypotheses about its nature. It helps us design tests and collect evidence to support or falsify those hypotheses. Even though it is not always possible to test hypotheses, scientific methodology can continually improve our understanding of reality because the process is cumulative and over time it will be self-correcting -- as long as there are no dogmatic obstacles in the way.

The modern redefinition of science

In the 19th century, scientific methodology started abandoning its original mission to pursue “truth wherever it may lead.” Today, science limits itself to pursuing truth only along the narrow path of the material or physical world, i.e., naturalism. Issues outside the physical or material realm, such as the very nature of truth, existence, mind, causation, rationality, life, purpose, freedom, and so on, are left to the philosophers and theologians. I have attempted to capture this partitioning in the diagram below. Naturalism works on problems of a physical nature, whereas philosophy and theology deal with matters of a transcendent nature, i.e., beyond (transcendent to) the physical world. Today many assume that the transcendent world does not “really” exist; or if it does it has no “real” interaction with the material world. That, however, is mere speculation. It should be obvious that the transcendent world is more than mere philosophical presupposition. Take, for example, man’s propensity for love, hope, faith, justice, to name a few. These defy material explanation. Even “humor” reminds us that man is captured within the finiteness of his person, and “play” gives us a clue that joy is real and has limits. Naturalism cannot explain consciousness let alone these complex manifestations of consciousness.

When discussing the creation/evolution issue it is important to note that one is dealing with both physical and philosophical issues. Understanding mutation and natural selection of a species is science. However, answering the question, “Where did the original material come from and why?” is a transcendent (philosophical/theological) matter. Evolution must presuppose creation of some sort, otherwise there would be no raw material to operate upon.[i]

Philosophy

The word philosophy is derived from the Greek word for “love of wisdom.” Its four major divisions are shown in the diagram below. Metaphysics, is the investigation of origins and ultimate questions. Epistemology deals with the origin, limits and validation of knowledge, i.e., how we know anything is “true.” Ethics deals with the nature of morality; and Aesthetics, the nature of beauty. One should ponder the fact that the most important quests for knowledge in our lives do not lend themselves to understanding through naturalism because scientific inquiry has redefined and limited itself to a very narrow path -- that of sensory perception only. Naturalism alone has nothing to say on issues of “good and bad” and “right and wrong,” but ethics does. Naturalism can not draw conclusions about the nature of beauty (e.g., is something art or junk?), but aesthetics can. There are natural limits to our understanding of the material world and we quickly reach those limits as soon one asks questions like: What existed before the Big Bang? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the meaning and purpose of life? Why are we here? Where are we going? These are issues of metaphysics and theology. And, if we ever attempt to know anything about the nature of “truth” itself (e.g., what is “reality?” how do we know our conclusions are “true” given our own biases and beliefs? etc.) -- naturalism can not help us at all. Only epistemology can.

Theology

The word “theology” is derived from Greek and literally means, “speaking or thinking about God.” Since God cannot be empirically investigated, theology is a discipline of philosophy. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is transcendent, i.e., He exists beyond the realm of the natural world.[ii] In the figure below, the box represent the limits of naturalism. Evidence for the existence of God, who is “outside the box,” as well as His participation in the natural world, can be deduced through scientific inquiry and reason from “inside the box.” Unfortunately, secular centers of learning arbitrarily impose limits on the scope of scientific inquiry, represented by the “walls” of the box. This prohibits philosophical propositions (e.g., the God-hypothesis) from ever being considered on its “scientific” merit. Not that empirical methods can be employed to “test” for God, but scientific methodology (viz., logic, evidence gathering, hypothesis-testing, etc.) can and should be deployed to deduce that one hypothesis is more likely than another, even if that hypothesis is philosophical in nature, i.e., from the fields of metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics and/or epistemology.

Science and philosophy

Scientific methodology can be helpful in any field of inquiry that is committed to the pursuit of truth. Evolution is practiced as a philosophy (naturalism) as much as it is a science and as such it should be examined by the disciplines upon which it makes those truth claims -- be it philosophy, history, or social science, etc. If evolution is evaluated in this broader context, the weight of evidence reveals the flaws of the grand scheme of evolution. On the contrary, the evidence reveals the “intelligent design” by a Designer who made us in His image and cares for us -- a God who is the originator of truth and beauty, and who is of perfect moral character and therefore worthy of worship and obedience. This kind of thinking is an anathema to the naturalistically programmed mind of today’s scientists.

Science is founded on philosophical assumptions that are not themselves scientifically verifiable. It assumes, for example, that the universe exists (i.e., it is not an illusion) and exhibits various kinds of order that can be known: That there are formal classifications of things, objects, events, facts, etc. which are uniform throughout the universe. Hence, H20 is water on earth, on Mars and anywhere else in the universe. It is not one thing here on earth and something else at another location in the universe. It assumes that mathematics and numbers, which are abstractions, actually correspond to the reality of the things they describe. And, that our senses are reliable in knowing the external world; and that our intellects are reliable in conceptualizing its phenomena. These are all philosophical assumptions that cannot be verified by science, but are mandatory to its proper functioning.

Naturalism is a subset of science (shown in the diagram as “the box”), and it assumes that “nature is all there is.” It assumes that only things that can be known by the senses and empirically tested are true. This is not a scientifically verifiable notion. It presupposes the nature of reality to be material only. Think about that for a moment. If only scientific statements are valid, and this statement is not scientific, then this statement is not valid! Science by that definition is self-refuting. At one time it was clearly understood that science could not be practiced in a vacuum – it was clearly understood to be based on philosophical premises. But, today most scientific education draws rigid lines between science and philosophy and pretends that they do not overlap. Or worse yet, science does not make clear distinctions about itself and philosophy and ends up confusing those who practice it. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the evolution/creation controversy.

Naturalism and theology

In the evolution/creation controversy we are clearly comparing a naturalistic hypothesis against a theological (philosophical) hypothesis. Since God is immaterial, no “material” evidence for His existence could ever be observed directly (e.g., seeing God’s “fingers”). However, God’s existence can be inferred scientifically by observing His “fingerprints,” i.e., the impact of His immaterial presence in the material world or the intelligent design of His creation; discovering that evidence is a legitimate scientific endeavor and not just philosophical speculation. Drawing a scientific hypothesis about a certain physical phenomenon without direct observation of the causing agent, i.e., inferring the agent’s presence (looking for its “fingerprints”), is done all the time in science. On April 16, 1999 it was reported that astronomers found another planetary system similar to our own circling the star Upsilon Andromedae some 264 trillion miles away. These planets cannot be seen directly even with the most powerful telescopes, but astronomers can infer their existence by careful study of their gravitational “effects” on the host star. Robert Noyes, a Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer said the new observations should dispel any doubts that these objects exist. It is legitimate to infer that the causing agent is indeed the planets circling the host star, even if they cannot be directly observed. Now ask, “What is the ultimate causing agent for the existence of the planets?” That is also a legitimate scientific question and could be answered if that sort of question were “allowed” to be pursued scientifically, i.e., following the evidence wherever the truth may lead – an inference to the best explanation.

Science + philosophy/theology give total perspective

Evidence for a Creator is a legitimate “truth question” for science to pursue since the answers it generates have profound impact on fundamental scientific principles, e.g., cause/effect; origin of matter and energy, time and space; human consciousness; intelligent design or chance, etc. However, science would have to “allow” the Creator to give evidence for Himself. In today’s naturalism, any positive evidence for the immaterial is ignored by definition and any investigation of it is reinterpreted in materialistic terms. One does not know beforehand (a priori) if a causing-agent (in particular, the initial causing-agent) is material or immaterial. In naturalism, one just mandates that the agent is material or ignores the question altogether leaving it for the philosophers and theologians to deal with independently. I maintain that science and philosophy/theology should cooperate and inform one another and in the process yield a much broader perspective on the true nature of things.[iii]

Contrary to popular belief, there is no clear understanding of exactly what science is. There are no agreed upon necessary and sufficient conditions that distinguish what is scientific from what is not scientific. This is because science is a collection of different activities that are useful in pursuing truth, but draw no impermeable barriers between itself and non-science. Nothing about science precludes philosophical or theological concepts from entering its very fabric. It is not an airtight compartment of study isolated from other fields of knowledge.

As previously noted, naturalism is a scientifically self-refuting notion. Something so obviously self-refuting should not be allowed to be a reigning paradigm in all matters. Naturalism is a valid assumption within its limits of explaining things in the physical world. But as it reaches the “boundary” (as shown in the diagram) philosophy/theology becomes the rising and eventually reigning paradigm.

Science is an inductive[iv] and hence self-correcting process as more data is accumulated. The history of science demonstrates that major advances in knowledge production are normally made in quantum jumps (paradigm shifts). That means that at any one time the reigning paradigm may be very (totally?) inaccurate (false?). For example, consider:

The theory of combustion: At first the reigning paradigm was phlogiston; today it is oxygen. In the future will it change?

The center of the solar system: At first it was the earth; now it’s the sun. In the future will it change?

The theory of mechanics: It was Newtonian, now it’s General Relativity. In the future what it will be?

The theory of origins: It was creation, now its evolution. In future what will it be?

Any theories and conclusions in science must be held tentatively, and alternative theories should not be summarily dismissed without evidentiary support. The current accepted paradigm should be the one that best fits the evidence to-date, not one arbitrarily chosen by philosophical presupposition.

Disciplines other than science do in fact tell us truth about the world. For example, history, law, mathematics, ethics, aesthetics, and philosophy produce (true) knowledge, which many times is better than that produced by science. Consider:

I am more certain that the Invasion of Normandy took place on June 6, 1944 than I am that the center of the earth is molten iron.

I am more certain that the laws of logic are true than I am that the planets around Upsilon Andromedae exist.

I am more certain that torturing babies for fun is immoral than I am that man evolved from an amoebae.

I am 100% certain that I love my wife and children

I am 100% certain that I exist.

Naturalistic science is very narrow in its scope of applicability. In fact, naturalism does not answer any of the really important questions of life:

How can I be happy?

What is love?

What is beauty?

Is there absolute truth?

How do I live a fulfilled life?

What is a life well lived?

Is there a hereafter?

Where am I going? Where did I come from?

Is there a purpose to my life?

Is there a God?

Since the scope of naturalism is so limited (by its own choosing), it should not be so dogmatic – insisting at every turn what is to be included in its purview and what must be excluded. Non-material things really exist. Consciousness, numbers, laws of logic, morality, virtue, beauty, truth, love, among many other important aspects of our universe really exist. Science alone is not equipped to explain the existence of these things nor their function. Naturalism, the belief that only material things exist, cannot account for these things, hence a science based strictly on naturalism gives a very incomplete picture of the world. Naturalism limits scientific inquiry, it does not facilitate it.

It is impossible, practically speaking, to totally separate science and religion. Many scientific pronouncements have impact, by their very nature, on the way we view the world and how we view human beings, e.g., how human beings were created; what the value of human life is, etc? These issues invoke religious or metaphysical considerations and to claim otherwise is sheer folly.

Science and Theology
Just a few hundred years ago theology was considered the “queen of the sciences” and science was a branch of philosophy called Natural Philosophy. Today, science has uncritically and arbitrarily drawn lines of demarcation (walls of separation) between itself, theology and philosophy. On the university campus, the schools of science and engineering are generally considered the paragon of intellectual thought in our scientific and technological age. The schools of philosophy are considered unimportant in comparison. Christian theology has been marginalized entirely and driven off campus to the Bible colleges. It wasn’t always like that. Harvard University was founded for “Christ and the Church.” The Latin word “Veritas” (Divine Truth) is still on its seal. The primary goal of the founders of Yale University was to assure that: “Every student shall consider the main end of his study to know God in Jesus Christ.” Today, even the academic study of God (particularly the Christian belief about Him), is considered irrelevant by the mainstream intellectual community. In the university, authority to describe “how things really are” has been arbitrarily given to the natural sciences.

Persons who base their thinking on the premise that God is real may be considered irrational, even dangerous, especially if they are in a position to influence society and public policy. Only a few Christians who are in a position of intellectual power have the courage to speak out. One such person is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia. In his 1996 address to the graduates of Mississippi College of Law, he said, “Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society, but fools for Christ’s sake. We must pray to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. Intellectuals throughout history have rejected miracles and the Easter story because they do not believe in miracles. But, it is irrational to reject miracles. One can be sophisticated and believe in God. Reason and intellect are not to be laid aside where matters of religion are concerned.”

Naturalism

Since the so-called Enlightenment (which I prefer to call the “Endarkenment”) science has abandoned its search for truth “wherever it may lead.” It has cut its ties from its philosophical progenitor. It has boxed itself into a position of investigating nature only as perceived by the five senses. One of the most stultifying aspects of the assumption that “nature is all there is” is that science acts as if no philosophical discipline can inform it. This dogmatism is self-refuting, as has been noted, since naturalism itself is based on philosophy, not science. One cannot conclude scientifically that science works. One must make philosophical presuppositions that the universe exists (e.g., it is not an illusion). That it exhibits order and that it can be known. That it is mind-independent, i.e., there is a real distinction between the observer and the observed. And, that mathematics (numbers and formulas written on paper) can represent and correspond to reality. Science does not (nor can not) provide this grounding for itself because those presuppositions are philosophical in nature, and there are competing views[v] which cannot be ignored. Without a philosophical basis, science would deny its own rationality because it cannot scientifically prove itself. One can only assume that it works.

The real creation/evolution debate is not about science. It’s about which worldview will prevail – “Nature is all there is,” or “In the beginning God created.” Evolutionary science has defined all competing philosophical views “off limits” and “out of bounds” in order to make its own methodology stand uncontested. If the irrational protective mechanisms of evolution were exposed in terms the public understood, the demise of naturalistic evolution would become imminent. Evolution relies on the philosophy of naturalism for its veracity, not on scientific evidence. Naturalism has established itself as the overarching (if not only) methodology for discovering truth about our universe and has established a potent line of defense against anything that would challenge its conclusions or its presuppositions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with philosophical propositions being investigated by the scientific methodology -- and accepted or rejected based on the evidence adduced. Philosophy can (and does) inform science. It is biased dogmatism that insists otherwise and arbitrarily picks and chooses which presuppositions it will allow.

Even though the vast majority of Americans are theists (i.e., they believe in God), the most influential intellectual people in America and around the world are naturalistic agnostics or atheists. The naturalist assumes that God exists only in the minds of religious believers. In our greatest universities, naturalism is the virtually unquestioned assumption that underlies science and all intellectual work. If naturalism is true, then humankind created God, not the other way around. This view has drawn an impenetrable line of demarcation between faith and reason. In this view, theism produces only opinion, which in turn produces “belief,” but science produces fact through “reason.” Religion therefore is a myth, and science is reality; so the view goes.

Most theists in science uncritically accept the naturalistic rules established by the atheists. Even some evangelical universities embrace the naturalistic methodology. Professor Nancy Murphy at Fuller Seminary says, “Christians and atheists alike must pursue scientific questions in our era without invoking a Creator. Anyone who crosses the line has stepped into the arena of theology.” Ms. Murphy, therefore, is saying that if we want to teach science in the church we should do so as if “nature is all there is.” Unfortunately for many churchgoers her statement stands uncontested. To them, Christianity is a matter of blind faith only. It is not a reasoned faith. The realm of reason is somehow considered, “for non-theists only” and intellectual discussions of science are left outside the church doors. This is an unacceptable position for the Church in a secular age dominated by information and technology.

Theistic Science
There is no incompatibility between faith and reason in the Scripture.[vi] True, we are to love God with our heart and soul (by faith), but we are also to love Him with our mind and strength (by rational process). Christianity is a reasonable and reasoned faith. It is not blind. It captures the mind as well as the heart. The heart cannot embrace what the mind rejects. Along with Phillip Johnson I advocate a return to theistic science, i.e., where nature is real and God is real. The Bible and science can be studied side-by-side as “dual textbooks of reality.” And, they can inform one another. I will argue that this has been the historical model. Today’s arbitrary separation of science and religion, faith and reason is a perversion of the historical model as well as a perversion of Scripture.

With the modern liberalization of Christianity, many who call themselves Christians have withdrawn from a strong position on the inspiration of Scripture and in doing so think they have found a safe harbor from attacks by science. By and large the Christian church has retreated for the last 100 years from the debate, thinking it has found ways of insulating itself from scientific criticism. I think they have not found safe harbor, but rather have wreaked havoc upon the faith. The church has become a loser not a winner. I believe one can be a biblical inerrantist and a modern scientist without having to suffer from schizophrenia. I think the average Christian has no need to be intimidated by modern science, and in fact can use the findings of science to help bring intellectually-minded people to Jesus Christ.

What does the Bible say about naturalism?

Psalm 19:1-4 -- The heavens declare the glory of God ... they pour forth speech ... they display knowledge ... their words go to the ends of the earth.

Romans 1:20 -- Since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes, His eternal power and Divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.

Hebrews 11:3 -- By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Nature is God’s creation and it is God’s universal way of revealing Himself to His creatures. In theology this is called God’s General Revelation.[vii] The study of nature is as much an inerrant communication from God as the 66 books of the Bible. It is sort of a “67th book.” Since God cannot lie, the communication by God through nature and the Bible must agree. The Scriptures call us to, “test all things; hold fast to that which is true” (I Thessalonians 5:21). It supports the scientific method of inquiry to, “investigate everything carefully ... so that we may know truth” (Luke 1:3, 4). Other “holy books” do not encourage this line of inquiry, at least in a scientific sense.

What does the Bible say about reason versus faith?

The Scripture challenges us to defend our faith in the marketplace of ideas. Not just by witnessing and preaching, but by intellectually engaging in public debate with reason and persuasion.

I Peter 3:15 -- “always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and respect.” The Greek word for “defense” is “apologia” from which we derive the name for the study of the intellectual defense of the faith -- apologetics.

Acts 17:17, 18 -- Paul is in Athens, the intellectual capital of world at that time. Notice how he was evangelizing: “He was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews ... and in the marketplace everyday with those who happened to be present.” Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him saying, “What does this idle babbler wish to say?” Paul goes to the intellectual center of the city, the Aeropagus (Mars Hill) and stands in the midst of the philosophers and proclaims to them the God of all creation. He quotes their poets and engages them intellectually. Then he preaches the gospel to them (v22-34). Some believed and were saved.

Jude 3 -- “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

Apologetics is a lost art in the church. Many of the early Church fathers became apologists (defenders of the faith) because their Christian beliefs were under attack constantly. In today’s post-Christian era, as we continue this breathtaking fall away from a biblical worldview, Christians must return to their biblical mandate to contend for the faith. The modern Christian has retreated from the work of the apologist. It is more important than ever before to be able to “give an answer for the hope that it within us.” We must remember, however, to do so with “gentleness and respect,” showing grace and love to those who disagree.

The historic relationship between Christianity and science

Many people think there was always a strained, if not hostile, relationship between Christianity and science. We have been taught that the church’s opposition to the science of Galileo, for example, blocked the development of astronomy. The implication is that science is superior to religion and the only thing Christianity has done for science is get in its way. Whatever the church’s opposition was at the time to heliocentricity (i.e., the sun being the center of the solar system), it was based on historical considerations and faulty interpretations of the Bible, not on direct teachings from it. The idea of an “immovable earth” with the sky as a moving domed roof goes back to Babylonian times. Aristotle embraced this idea adding that the Earth was at the center, with everything else moving around it. In the 2nd century AD, Ptolemy drew up a model for the orbits of the five known plants, and the sun, moon and stars around the earth. Ptolemy’s model of the universe turned out to be as acceptable to the Christian Church as it had been to most everyone in the ancient world. It is not surprising therefore that Ptolemy’s model went unchallenged until the 16th century. Society as a whole is slow to accept any new scientific paradigms, not just the church.

If Christian belief had been such a barrier to science it is difficult to understand why so many founders of modern science were devout believers, e.g., Copernicus, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Kepler, Cuvier, Linnaeus, Mendel, Faraday and many others. Most scientists before the Enlightenment studied science in an effort to know their Creator. Their science was done to the glory of God. They filled their notebooks with prayers, praise, and theological musings. They studied the creation in an effort to better know their Creator. Their conviction in studying science was to “know God and seek His thoughts after Him.” They integrated science with their Christian faith. Isaac Newton, for example, used both his scientific and Christian beliefs to conduct his work both in science and theology. In 1684 Newton formulated the mass and distance laws of gravity, and in 1687 the three laws of motion. With these mathematical formulations he achieved the first great breakthrough in modern science. His laws were exact and equally applicable to all inanimate matter, from the solar system down to grains of sand. The universe, he said, is not just orderly but also intelligible because it is part of God’s grand design, which he believed he was discovering.

Up until the turn of this century Christianity was the dominant intellectual force in most areas of life in the West. This is seen today as negative. But in fact biblical Christianity provided the philosophical basis for science to arise in the first place. To omit or dismiss the Christian foundation of science and the religious motivation of its founders is to misunderstand the true nature of science. Science is the Christian’s friend, but some Christians have allowed it to become an enemy. Understanding science and how it works is a tremendous apologetic tool for witnessing and defending the faith. Science, which originated out of a Christian worldview, turned on its progenitor after Darwin arrived. Many began to believe that the creation of life could be explained by naturalistic means alone and that God was no longer necessary as its originator.

The development of science in the West[viii]

Historians of science know that it was Christianized Europe that gave birth to modern science even though several cultures of antiquity produced higher levels of learning and technology than medieval Europe. Did you ever ask yourself why modern science has its roots in Western civilization and not in Eastern culture? Consider this comparison of the biblical teaching to that of other worldviews --

Genesis 1:1 -- “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Eastern religions, e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism, are pantheistic.[ix] Fundamentally, they see the world as an illusion (maya) which is to be overcome by self-realization. The Bible, however, portrays nature as real not an illusory state of the mind. Nature is the created realm of definable structures; objects of inquiry that are distinct from the Creator and “available” for people to study.

Genesis 1:4, 10 -- “and God saw that it was good.” Science depends on a society that places a great value on nature, but does not deify it. In the Bible, nature is seen as good because God said that it was good. In Eastern and many other philosophies nature is seen at best as uncontrollable, and at worst evil with only spiritual reality being good. In Eastern systems of thought, one tries to overcome the natural world through meditation. They do not see the natural world as a stage for God’s activities or for scientific investigation.

Genesis 1:16 -- “And God made two great lights (sun and moon); He made the stars also.” God created the heavenly bodies. They are not “gods” as they are thought to be in most primitive religions, nor “one with God” as they are in Eastern pantheistic religion. God is not part of nature. This de-deification of nature was a necessary precondition for science to develop. Nature was seen as available for study. It was not impious to investigate nature, as it would be if nature itself were deity.

Genesis 1:14 -- “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens …. and let them be for seasons and for days and for years.’” Christians saw the universe as orderly and predictable because God set it up that way. People of non-biblically based religions and philosophies saw nature as unpredictable (at best), and terrifying (at worst). The ancient Chinese, although an advanced civilization, never developed modern science because they had no belief in an intelligible order to nature. Chinese scholars abandoned the idea of a Supreme Being with personal and creative attributes. No rational Author of Nature existed in their universe, consequently the objects of nature they so meticulously described did not follow universal principles. In the absence of a compelling need for the notion of general laws, little or no search was made for them. Christians like Copernicus, on the other hand, sought to study the structure of the universe because they believed it was, “wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.” The laws of nature were seen as manifestations of “thoughts in the mind of God.”

Genesis 2:16 -- “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘from any tree of the garden you may eat freely.’” The Bible teaches that the Creator is also the Lawgiver. This is the basis for the concept of Natural Law. Natural Law was unknown to most in the ancient world. Nature simply did not strike people as something to be lawful or rational. Nature was dangerous, mysterious and intractable. Descartes said that the mathematical laws sought by science were legislated by God in the same manner a king ordains laws in his realm. The conviction that nature was intelligible comes from biblical precepts.

Genesis 1:1 -- God created ex nihilo (out of nothing). He created every molecule precisely the way He wanted it to be, and He exercises absolute control. There is not one renegade molecule in the universe. There is no pre-existing substance that has some kind of nature outside of God’s control. Most other philosophies and religions have to deal with an eternal universe that has an existence and power of its own. The Christian founders of modern science (e.g., Kepler) were led to search for precision and mathematical certainty in nature because the Bible taught that God does not lie. If nature had a “mind of its own” that would make it unpredictable and uncontrollable.

Genesis 1:3, 6, 9 -- “Then God said ….” God created things for His own purposes. He exercises His own free will. We can’t presume to know His will unless we seek it out through His revelation. In practice this means discovering the God who reveals Himself in various ways.[x] His general revelation compels the discoverer to “seek out” the things of nature. The biblical worldview gave birth to one of the most foundational aspects of modern science -- the experimental (empirical) method of observation and test. Galileo said, “We cannot presume to know how God thinks, we must go out and look at the world He created.”

Genesis 1:28 -- God gave human beings “dominion” over the earth, i.e., to cultivate it, care for it, harness its forces for human benefit. The early scientists regarded technology as “exercising dominion,” and as a means by which they could alleviate the destructive effects of the curse imposed by the fall in Genesis 3. That idea was revolutionary. In Eastern thought, man is trapped in a fatalistic cycle of reincarnation. In the West, technological dominion was to be used to ameliorate man’s condition. The founding of hospitals, missions, and helping institutions was primarily the work of Christians who saw it as serving God and “exercising dominion.”

Where are we today?

Unfortunately, the prognostication of Romans 1:21-25 has come true. It predicted that something like evolutionism (naturalism) would become the ultimate perversion of Christianity:

“For even though they knew God they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures .…they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.”

------

[i] The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, yet it is here. Therefore it had to be created.
[ii] In Christian theology, the term “transcendent” refers to God’s “being,” which is of a higher order (ontology) than that of a “being” in the natural world. The “Supreme” being has attributes that are beyond (transcends) those of the “human” being, e.g., God is self-existent (not dependent, not contingent); God is omnipotent (all-powerful, not limited), omniscient (all-knowing, not ignorant), etc. Therefore, the Supreme Being is able to create and rule the natural world, creating and sustaining the laws by which it operates. God is also “imminent” with His creation, caring for it, loving it and sustaining all that He created.
[iii] This section adapted from Science & Faith: Are They Compatible? by Greg Koukl, Stand to Reason.
[iv] Induction is the logical process by which one observes particulars and draws a general conclusion that theoretically governs all the particulars. One never knows for sure if the generalization holds in all cases because one generally never gets to observe all the particulars.
[v] A number of schools of thought that exist (e.g., pantheism) deny the full reality of an external, mind-independent, material universe.
[vi] Unfortunately various Christian communities have pitted faith and reason to be at odds with one another.
[vii] God’s other ways of revealing Himself are His Word (the Bible), which is His Special Revelation (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). And, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, which is God’s final revelation (Hebrews 1:2).
[viii] Much of the material in this section was adapted from The Soul of Science by Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton.
[ix] The word “pantheism” is derived from the Greek words for “all, everything” (pan) and “god” (theos). In theology pantheism purports that god is everything and in everything, not distinct from it as in biblical theism.
[x] The Bible says that if you seek God, He will find you, i.e., make Himself known to you. This is the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit. The objective ways God reveals Himself are: through nature (general revelation); the Bible (special revelation); and Jesus Christ (the incarnation).