Can’t there be both? I often feel that God created man perfect and in that, man was whole…genetically. All the genes of man were compiled, and active, in Adam and Eve. But after the fall, the evilness of discrimination was one of the things that festered in the hearts of man. People began to separate on traits, perhaps catalyzed with Babylon, leading to the the separation of races. As like grouped with like, the mix of genes washed out. That in itself is evolution, the altering of genes by surroundings.
I was homeschooled in a staunchly conservative christian household and taught that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) was the only possible interpretation of the Genesis story. God created the universe in 7 literal 24-hour periods about 6000 years ago, and only crazy atheists believe in Evolution. Looking back many years later, I find it incredibly improbable that anyone could come to such a conclusion based on an unbiased review of the evidence, which almost universally points to a universe and earth that’s billions of years old and a process of macroevolution responsible for creating all life on earth over hundreds of millions of years. The evidence against YEC is so overwhelming that I could only believe such a position if I believed that God set everything up to look like the opposite in order to test our faith. And I have no reason to believe that.
The core of this issue, however, goes much deeper than origins for me, to the root of what we believe and why. Humanity is flawed, and our interpretation of scripture must therefore also be flawed. When our interpretation collides with reality, as it has in the genesis story over the last 150 years, how we respond reveals much about the nature of our belief system. If we stick our heads in the sand and ignore the reality around us, clinging stubbornly to an interpretation proven wrong over and over again, it raises the question of why we believe in this Book at all?
Ultimately, much of the “creation science” that I’ve seen is not about science at all, but about proving a position that its proponents held to begin with. Science is about a search for the truth, not a gathering of evidence for a truth already assumed. Creation science is a top-down approach to knowledge, starting with its conclusion and seeking evidence to support it, while attacking, ignoring, or discrediting the evidence to the contrary. True science, and any honest search for truth begins at the bottom, and follows the evidence to its conclusion, regardless of whether it makes the searcher happy or fits their notions of the world.
My view on evolution today stems from my perspective on faith and science, and my opinion that they must be reconciled in order to be credible. My personal interpretation of the Genesis story falls under the broad category of Theistic Evolution, or the view that God created the beginning and the processes (including evolution) that gave birth to the world we live in today. I personally find no conflict between this belief and the other parts of my faith, but others may, and they must seek out the issue for themselves. But ultimately, I think that Christians have a responsibility to love God with their minds and to use the tools of logic He has given us to discover the truth in the world. If I come to the point where reality is irreversibly unable to be reconciled to the tenets of my faith, I’ll walk away from that faith. How could I not? As Paul said, if our faith is based on a lie, and we hope for Christ in this life only, we are to be pitied above all men. Why persist in a belief system that is completely divorced from reality?
As Ryan attests to, the creation vs. evolution debate has largely been reduced to a debate on the age of the Earth. This is unfortunate, because it misses the forest for the trees. The real debate is on whether all that we see is the product of blind naturalistic processes, or the result of a designing intelligence.
When it comes to evolution, the mechanism is what matters. Natural selection working on random mutation is said to be the driving force for evolutionary change. Until recently, there was no real way to evaluate the power of random mutation + natural selection (RM+NS) to generate biological novelty/complexity/information. Studies in microbiology, however, have changed that.
If there is any place in the biological world where we should see evolution occuring it is in the microbial world since they have the three things needed for evolutionary development: large population sizes, short reproduction cycles, and fast mutation rates (time is virtually irrelevant). So what do we find when we examine microbes?: that RM+NS cannot generate biological novelties.
Richard Lenski has been culturing E.coli for more than 44K generations. That corresponds to roughly 800K years of human evolution. What has RM+NS produced? Virtually nothing. No new proteins. No new biological systems. It’s still E.coli, and still functions in the same way. What little innovation is has experienced has been the result of breaking existing cellular machinery, not contructing new machinery. That’s the opposite of evolution! In fact, some strains of E.coli are mutating at rates 70x faster than normal, causing the genome to devolve (losing genetic information).
Or consider malaria. For it to develop a resistance to the anti-malaria drug Chloroquine, it had to experience just two coordinated random mutations. The odds of it doing so are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000. Because the population size is so large (1 trillion cells in each of the 1 billion infected people) it can overcome the odds. For humans to experience a comparable mutation would take 20 billion years (5x longer than the whole history of life)! And what would we get for our wait? A transformation from one organism into another? No. A new biological system to help advance us toward the next stage of evolution? No. A new protein? No. We would only get an existing gene broken in a way that just-so-happens to help us survive.
RM+NS may be able to produce small changes in organisms (and usually by breaking things, not building things), but not macro-evolutionary changes. And yet, that’s what’s needed for Darwin’s theory to be successful. If RM+NS lack the power to produce large-scale changes in organisms, then there is good reason to reject the thesis that blind, naturalistic processes alone can explain the diversity of life. The evidence points in another direct: intelligence.
I’m not a biologist, but I think you’re misrepresenting Richard Lenski’s experiment and the implications of his research. It’s been pretty widely regarded as more evidence for evolution. More importantly, your post makes a very valuable point that is often overlooked in these discussions: evolution and biology are very complex. The people who work in these fields have spent their lives working on these problems and still don’t understand much of it. The complexity is such that non-experts in the field are almost totally at the mercy of those who understand it enough to push their viewpoint. For example, I found this comment on a post similar to yours that tried to use this experiment as evidence for ID:
“Just because a trait requires multiple mutations doesn’t mean it precludes Darwinian evolution. Chloroquine resistance for example likely involves a complex metabolic pathway for detoxification. The proteins necessary for this resistance could have easily been altered by generations of relatively silent mutations that in combination allowed the plasmodium to survive the chloroquine. Nothing about this explanation goes against Darwinian evolutionary thought.”
I have no idea what that means, and I’m fine with admitting that. I recognize that this subject is inherently complex, and I’m continuing to further my knowledge and try to understand it. In the meantime, I also recognize that the vast majority of men and women who have dedicated their lives to studying evolutionary biology and related fields agree that random mutations + natural selection are the mechanisms by which evolution takes place. I don’t trust this consensus blindly, but I have far, far more reason to trust that broad consensus than I do to trust the occasional disagreeing scientists here or there, many of which seem to be Christians (and some of which work for the Discovery Institute…hmmm), and thus seem far more likely to have started with their conclusion and be on a search for evidence to back it up.
Science is an evolving belief system. Less than 2000 years ago the foremost scientists thought there were only 1000 stars in the sky and any belief contrary to that by the leading philosophers and thinkers would have been looked at as ridiculous and— think we’ve heard this one– “unprovable”. Time has now told that story. The more we know, in science, the more we don’t know- so it seems.
Unfortunately, if anybody has seen the documentary, Expelled, we recognize that the science community is overwhelmingly pressured to espouse views of anti-creation and does not abide by its own ideas of purely “searching for the truth”. Instead, if any evidence suggests anything contrary to its sacred evolution theory, the data is essentially discarded. Modern day scientists feel forced to only gather and publish evidence for a truth already assumed- evolution. (and so that argument goes both ways)
Another thing I think about sometimes is – do I believe that God could have created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Sure. Would this be unscientific? Not necessarily. God could have created the world to look billions of years old the same way he could have created humans as adults. ‘Adam and Eve’ didn’t necessarily start out as babies if you read Genesis literally. Maybe the earth didn’t start out that way either if God started the timeline further down the path of development/evolution.
On the other hand, God could have created a framework for the universe that allowed for the process of evolution to shape the world over time.
I am willing to believe that God is big enough that he could have done it either way, and regardless of which it is, I’m not sure it makes a difference in how we should live our lives; except that spending a ton of time to ‘disprove’ evolution probably isn’t the most effective use of our time (scientific study and debate for fun is great, I just don’t think anyone should hang their theological hat on the scientific theories on this issue)
I understand that this thread is concerned with the ongoing debate between creation and evolution but let me just throw this out there real quick: who cares?
If you believe that your God is the omnipotent creator of the entire universe, telling him how he did or didn’t create life on Earth seems… rather silly. He did what he did because he did it and our calling something creation or evolution doesn’t have any more bearing on reality than the word “Blue” has on the particular frequency of electromagnetic radiation that it is supposed to describe.
But let’s say that you do think it’s a relevant issue and it really should have taken God the same amount of time to create man as it did to create water and land or the Sun and the Moon or all of life in the seas. Is winning this argument the very best investment of your short time on Earth? I, for one, don’t think so.
We live in what is undoubtedly the most pivotal era of human history. Ever. Being citizens of one of the world’s foremost superpowers, we are, more so than most of the rest of the world, responsible for the well-being of the next generation. While we spend countless man-hours arguing over what may or may not have happened in the distant past, we forfeit our stake in the future.
Now, to actually address the debate itself, let’s ask ourselves one [not-so-simple] question: “what exactly constitutes ‘creation’?”.
If you are convinced that God is a wizard of sorts who does all of his work on a very human timescale, in a manner that is intentionally very easy for humans to grasp, I’m afraid reading further will be of no use to you. Thank you for your time.
However, if you are simply bothered by the idea that man could arise randomly from a jumble of subatomic particles, then I have some good news for you: you have more in common with the scientists than you might think. Just ask anyone who has worked on creating “randomness”; we haven’t actually come up with a good way to do it. For all we know, “randomness” is simply a human construct. I like to think of it as a blanket term that we invoke when we can’t identify the underlying pattern.
Of course, elucidating the underlying pattern in a massive set of data can be about as simple a proving that something doesn’t exist (though the former is actually an ongoing experiment and you might be interested in checking it out at http://noosphere.princeton.edu/), but at least we can get some satisfaction from knowing that our uneasiness regarding the idea of randomness is something that we all have in common, from the dice roller to the researcher to the churchgoer. And isn’t a better understanding of the unity of God’s children something that He’d like us to have?
Two positions presented. One called evolution, the other called creation. Both require an origin. One position generally holds that “nothing” was the origin of everything and the other generally holds that “God” was the origin of everything. Both require faith in the unseen. Faith generally results from evidence whose rabbit trail at some point becomes immeasurable. Finally a choice (at the very least, temporary) has to be made to reconcile a curiosity of purpose.
it seems to me that the whole creation vs evolution issue was blown out of proportion for political reasons and the church has been all too eager to take on the role of the victim (there are so many better ways to be more like Jesus…). most evolutionary biologists that I’ve met have no theological agenda to speak of, though, as you’re well aware, there are some who think that atheism is the only “scientific” stance (not realizing, ironically, that they get pretty religious when it comes down to supporting their claims).
from what I understand, most serious researchers gave up on the creation vs evolution debate a long, long time ago. it’s really only an issue because the corporate media outlets know exactly what gets good ratings these days. unfortunately, antagonism is such a deeply ingrained trait in our culture that, if we weren’t divided over this particular issue, we’d just find another equally meaningless argument to engage in, just as long as it doesn’t require us to confront the chronic under-achievement of our civilization.
I think that it is arrogant to believe that any creature could create the complexities we observe in the universe. And if indeed there is an omnipotent power out there, why would humans be the center of focus? The way I see it, humans are far less evolved than many other species, even bacteria. We’ve not been around all that long. And besides, when did god suddenly start having a heart anyway? Was it a few moments before homo erectus? Or just after the Sumerians?
Could a god be behind it all of this? Perhaps, but it certainly did not happen in any way that existing religious texts describe. If there is a god out there, he/she is no more than a creator, with love for all existence… Even those dirty little molecules that preform acts of mortal sin.
//there are some who think that atheism is the only “scientific” stance (not realizing, ironically, that they get pretty religious when it comes down to supporting their claims).//
I have to ask, what claims do you think atheists make. As far as I know, all they claim is that they don’t know what created the universe and they’re waiting for further evidence. Though, I’ve often been told by theists that admitting not knowing the answer is smug and arrogant.
if you are simply bothered by the idea that man could arise randomly from a jumble of subatomic particles,
Which is not what evolution via natural selection says, so if that’s what bothers anyone (I am not saying Alex believes what I quoted there by the way), a closer look at what evolution is (basically, in modern biology, it’s the observation that proportions of alleles in a population change over time) and what natural selection is (in essence, the theory that explains that observation, a bit long to explain in a parenthetical aside) might be in order.
More specifically, faith begins with some type of observation or measurement and, in an attempt to explain the greater whole, skips a few steps and posits that there must be some kind of Creator. This has been done time and time again throughout history by even the extremely scientific-minded, where a genius makes a breakthrough and treads new ground until he hits a wall. Unable to explain any farther, he invokes a Creator in order to explain away the complexity of what faces him. Some years later, another genius breaks through this wall, treading farther until he hits another, etc. Turns out lightning and thunder have nothing to do with Thor at all.
So many things are explainable these days that could only be attributable to a god in the past that I’m not really sure why this would be any different. Evolution only requires faith if you do not (or care not) to understand the mountain of evidence before you.
I have to apologize for my confusing use of the f-word..
“More specifically, faith begins with some type of observation or measurement and, in an attempt to explain the greater whole, skips a few steps, with religious faith positing that there must be some kind of Creator.”
Evolution is not only true, it is, at every step of the way, governed by local rules of chemistry. This much we know. Take the time to read “The Greatest Show on Earth.” It will lay out, with detail, every single piece of information you need to know about evolution. If you read it, there will be no question about the validity of evolution through natural selection. The only question left for you to answer will be, “Where does god fit in?”
The whole debate seems rather childish to me as either is as debatable as the other. For people who believe in creationism, their only proof for such claim is that the bible states it, when from a personal standpoint, the story of how god created us is much more metaphorical than to be taken literally word for word and there must certainly be more research done as to how the actual process came about. For ones who have such a not only hard belief but seemingly irrefutable proof of evolution, It’s very enticing material but still, if we don’t question our origins, it’s possible we may never learn anything past that might be the truth. In this light, I’m claiming that as logical and indeed as each subject may seem, there still must be much more intense and intimate debate and questioning done past that so we could possibly learn something never before known about ourselves.
I think i am learning more from reading this thread than from most books i have read on the subject. Books just present one view, this is great.
@RYAN, Why do evangelicals put so much weight in the YEC?
@JASON, Do you think what one believes on this issue is ultimately salvific, that is to say, for those who believe in a literal heaven and hell do they find it necessary to believe in a literal 24 hour YEC?
@ALEX, Do you think that this issue is a stumbling block to scientist in terms of their faith?
@Jonathon Swift, if there was a God what would you want him to be like? what kind of world would he have created?
Tnere’s nothnig to debate because there is no God to create anything. If there is or was one then why is he such a jack***? He’s invisible, he cannot speak, he has other invisible fairies that cannot speak. Only once in 6,000 years has he had the balls to speak and it was nowhere near a camera or video recorder to make sure, because to God it is important that we have a clear understanding and not be confused about his demands, and even then whatever he said wasn’t written down….because nobody had pen and paper. What a crock of ****.
Wow, there are some smart guys on here, this is a underdeveloped area in my personal study. So I will do some reading and allow you smart guys to flesh out the facts. I applaud your zeal and ability to retain the knowledge to articulate your ideas.
As a Believer, I know one thing, God is not afraid of truth, even if we are!
I am not sure that there ought to be an either/or here. Gen 1.27 says that God created humans. It is vague. It doesn’t say “how”. Gen 2.7 gives a few more details: God formed man “from the dust” and then did a supernatural act of giving him ‘ruach’ or “breath/spirit” that made him a ‘living being’. Science cannot explain this supernatural act and theology cannot explain what the process of “being formed from dust” looked like. Is it not possible that “being formed from dust” was the evolutionary process?
Brian, don’t strain your brain trying to fit the bible to reality. Read a book about evolution (I suggest The Greatest Show On Earth) and teach yourself how reality works. Once you do that, ask yourself if it is even necessary to include the bible or god in your world view.
What an EXCELLENT discussion! I’m frankly blown away by the clarity of some of the arguments on this blog.
As one who holds faith, reason, science and scripture in high regard, I’ll throw out a quote from St. Augustine (354 – 430 AD)as food for thought [warning: I ripped the quote from from Wikipedia for all you cite-checkers out there]:
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” – De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, [408]
If I can paraphrase, it appears to me that Augustine was urging Christians to tread softly when we attempt to derive scientific truths from spiritual texts, lest we appear (as Mr. Crackhorns so eloquently put it) like jacka$$es to non-believers.
If you are free this Saturday evening or Sunday morning, and want an opportunity to participate in an in depth discussion of these issues, come to http://www.sflighthouse.com, where I’ll be leading a discussion and giving a talk on this topic. I think there’s going to be free coffee. I hope I’m not so boring that you’ll need it. . . .
I have to ask, what claims do you think atheists make. As far as I know, all they claim is that they don’t know what created the universe and they’re waiting for further evidence. Though, I’ve often been told by theists that admitting not knowing the answer is smug and arrogant.
It could be a misunderstanding but my understanding is that people who admit that they don’t know are generally classified as “agnostics”. I feel like that’s the humble approach because, if the deity you believe in is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, he’ll know when you believe in something simply as a matter of convenience and he’ll definitely be able to do something about it. When people tell me with utmost certainty that their creator thinks/feels/does a certain thing, sometimes I wonder where the “fear of God” went.
I have met many people who simply say “there is no such thing as God and I am sorry that you suffer from that delusion” and these are the people I consider atheists. I think it’s obvious why that’s not a scientific statement. I mean, you’d have a hard time proving that anything doesn’t exist, never mind this very broadly defined being we call “God”. If a statement is not falsifiable, it requires that you have faith because empirical evidence isn’t going to be able to do much for you.
efrique said:
Which is not what evolution via natural selection says, so if that’s what bothers anyone (I am not saying Alex believes what I quoted there by the way), a closer look at what evolution is (basically, in modern biology, it’s the observation that proportions of alleles in a population change over time) and what natural selection is (in essence, the theory that explains that observation, a bit long to explain in a parenthetical aside) might be in order.
That’s true, and I think my using the term “evolution” might be misleading here.
My definition of “evolution” is probably:
ev·o·lu·tion
–noun
1.
any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
I feel that evolution is more than just its biological manifestation, so I really should use a different term, but I haven’t been able to think of a good alternative (do let me know if you’ve got one for me), and “evolution” already has all these thought-provoking implications.
I get the feeling that “evolution”, whatever it is, has been at work since the beginning, evolving stars and planets and life as we know it. I also don’t think that humans are the last stop. We have relied on our technology to compete with other species (be it weapons, domestication of animals, the internal combustion engine, the semiconductor, etc.), so I think that our merging with technology (ever use a GPS to get around?) is just the next rung in the evolutionary ladder. I don’t know that we’re giving our species a fair shake if we limit our understanding to the transfer of genetic material between generations. In fact, a lot of research suggests that studying the distribution of alleles is entirely insufficient; gene expression is what determines much of our biology (and hence our ability to adapt/survive) and a whole lot of that is determined by our environment as well as the genes we’ve inherited (check out “epigenetics” if that interests you).
In any case, thank you for pointing it out. I’ll try to be more careful when using potentially ambiguous words.
@Jeffrey Garner:
Personally, no. I think it’s only a stumbling block if you want it to be, but my opinion probably has a good deal of bias, since it was the study of science that got me interested in God on the “I feel it in my bones” level rather than the “my parents said it’s good for me” level.
I just wanted to add that had I had a forum such as this one a few years back, my life may have been a bit easier.
I went off to school with my religion down pat and a manual in hand to fight those demonic evolutionists at school. I knew all the creationist arguments and figured i was on good ground.
Anyone who begins to look at the evidence for evolution (as some have referenced here) will hopefully see that the evidence for evolution just rolls over the creationist arguments. (I have yet to read the Greatest Show on Earth, though from my understanding much of the content is similar to what is in “Why evolution is true” by Jerry Coyne which I highly recommend.).
Naturally for a fundamentalist Christian of sorts, when I realized evolution was true, I felt like one of my legs of support for my faith was ripped right off.
And I struggled for a good year or two trying to reconcile the science with religion, and it was a very lonely fight as I could not find any sympathizers in the religious community. Books were my only friend in this matter (outside of my friends blasting me for my beliefs)
With my experience in mind, I do think the creation/evolution argument is very very important. Not necessarily to be done in a debating sense, but rather just in a knowledge that we live in particular cultures that have very dogmatic stances regarding such matters and do not allow “alternatives” in belief regarding these matters. For instance, my life would have been much easier had I known that being a theistic evolutionist was very common amongst many theologians. Or at the same time, most atheists seem to confuse the fundamentalist position of creationism as the only way to belief, and such discussions as these show that this is far from the case….
Enjoying the discussion. Enough good stuff here I need to digest before I can really chime in.
I think many Christians are comfortable with accepting the idea of evolution within a species, but not an evolutionary process from one species to another.
Also, one of the most problematic cases to support evolution has been the fossil record, and furthermore the lack of proof to connect a single occurrence of when one species has become another. The changes in degree are there (longer beaks, different color stripes, etc), but not in species (dog to cat, etc). In other words, the craze to find a MISSING LINK, many believe, is likely just a futile exercise to fully prove Darwinian Evolution. This does not preclude that any of these are “anti-Science.” Pure science, in fact, is the Scientific Method, not a philosophical argument. In other words, science is the expert witness on the stand, not the entire case itself.
What I see as a fundamental different, in stereotype of those who reject Creation over Evolution, is a “looking to the stuff” for the answers of the “How.”
Science is an instrument of God in that it reveals His glory more fully. It shows His order and that He is rational. We can launch as far out into space, and we get the same rational pattern. We can zoom as far into matter, and especially with the development in microbiology, we are able to see order. The universe in its largest form and smallest form show us order.
Science is at its best when it focuses on the “What” and stays away from the “How.” thus differentiating science from philosophy. This amalgamation of function in the Science community has caused concerns as well.
Finally, the so-called Science vs. Religion debate, as Alex said, it one largely created on political reasons. The reality is that Science explains to us how the “stuff in the box” works (see Darwin’s Black Box), philosophy and religion attempt explanations of the more metaphysical questions of “how the stuff got there,” pointing the questions “outside the box” (of stuff).
Like Joel, I would have benefitted greatly from a discussion like this when I was a freshman in college. It was inconceivable to me at the time that one could enjoy a robust faith without forfeitting one’s intellect. I was under the misguided impression that religion and science were mutually exclusive enterprises.
I hope you guys get a chance to swing by San Francisco Lighthouse Church on Saturday evening or Sunday morning to share your thoughts and insights on this topic. It will likely prove to be a lot of fun, and hopefully somewhat useful. The churchs is at 1337 Sutter Street (Van Ness); see http://www.sflighthouse.com/ for times, etc.
Great article. Thanks, Brian. Below is an excerpt from McGrath’s interview with the Christian Evidence Society wherein he succinctly discusses the four major Christian approaches to interpreting Genesis’ description of creation:
“Q: When it comes to ideas about how the world started, many people think there are only two options – evolution or the Bible. Is that the only choice?
A: No. All Christians take the Bible very seriously and will say that it is of the utmost importance to remain faithful to what it is saying. The key question is how to interpret the Bible. Are, for example, the first three chapters in Genesis literal history? Or are they something deeper than that?
There are four main positions within Christianity. Young Earth creationism says the Earth is about 6,000 years old and was made pretty much in the form that we see now. This conclusion, they say, is a natural reading of the Book of Genesis.
Another school of thought – old Earth creationism – while agreeing that God made the Earth and everything in it within a limited time frame, says that there are gaps within the Genesis account. For example, God creates the Universe, then there’s a gap and then he creates something else. In other words, the Universe is extremely old but God made the Earth and us at a much later stage. That, again, is a perfectly legitimate way of interpreting the Book of Genesis.
A more recent development is intelligent design. This is quite similar to old Earth creationism but the talk is not so much about ‘God’ as about an ‘intelligent designer’. The basic argument is that we cannot explain the way the world is by purely naturalist explanations. We have to invoke an intelligent designer to explain what we find. This argues that a purely Darwinian account of the world cannot give a total picture.
The fourth approach is theistic evolution. This sees evolution as the way in which God providentially exercises his creative processes and brings the world into being.
This approach finds a lot of favour among Christian biologists and links in well with some parts of the Book of Genesis, particularly those that talk about the Earth bringing forth things, which seems to imply there’s some kind of ongoing natural process.
Each of these ideas has its strengths and its weaknesses. But underlying each of these approaches is the very firm insistence that the world is God’s creation; it is his world not ours; and it was deliberately brought into being – and so were we.
Q: So somebody can be a Christian and believe in evolution?
A: Yes, they can. Evolution is not, by definition, atheistic. Darwin saw his theory as reconcilable with the Bible. He struggled with his Christian faith towards the end of his life but that was because his daughter had died very young, not because of his ideas on evolution.
Some Christians will be uncomfortable with the idea of believing in evolution, particularly because it raises the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. That’s a very big issue in its own right. All I can say is that, with complete integrity, there are many Christians who see evolution as illuminating the way in which we understand Genesis and as giving us an enhanced vision of how God brought the world and humankind into being. People can make evolution atheistic but it doesn’t have to be.”
I want to clarify that I am not saying that the Bible describes evolution. I am saying that it is vague enough that one could affirm the message of Genesis (which is not “how did this process occur scientifically”)while affirming evolution. The Bible is not a science textbook. It doesn’t even try to delve into such details.
Religion approaches the subject of reality from the wrong direction. You read your Big Book and then look for correlation with the world. The problem with this approach is that you fall victim to the confirmation bias, ignoring everything that doesn’t match the template you’re determined to see through. What you should do is look at reality first, learn about it and see how it works. Dive into chemistry, into biology, into geology, into physics; learn how it all works.
Instead of asking your book for permission to believe a certain way, see for yourself how it actually IS. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. That is to say, believing in creationism doesn’t make it so. Why should you believe first and confirm second?
Put evidence ahead of faith and you’ll find that there is no debate. Evidence points 100% in favor of evolution through natural selection. If there is a god, it does not interfere in any step of the process.
I am not a biologist either. I just read the works of biologists. Yes, it is used as evidence for evolution, but so are peppered moths! I find it quite amazing what Darwinists appeal to for evidence. Calling it “flimsy” is too gracious. They usually appeal to the ability of organisms to experience small changes (microevolution, for which we have evidence) as evidence that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species (macroevolution, for which we have no evidence). But this is an illegitimate extrapolation from the evidence. It assumes, rather than proves, that there is no natural limit to the amount of change a species can undergo. That must be proven. It hasn’t. Indeed, the evidence is pointing in the opposite direction: that there is a natural imit to genetic variability an organism can experience.
As for Lenski’s experiments, I don’t think I am misrepresenting it at all. Not a single new protein has evolved, yet alone a new biological system, yet alone a new species. Instead, genes that make RNA are getting broken, and the mutation rate is accelerating (which results in further corruption of the genome). The only “novel” change witnessed is the ability some E.coli evolved to digest citrate. But several things should be noted about this change:
1. E. coli can normally digest citrate in anaerobic (absence of oxygen) conditions.
2. E. coli already possessed the enzymes necessary to metabolize citrate. They only lacked a way of getting citrate through their membrane in the presence of oxygen.
3. It took 32K generations to produce this tiny change. At this rate of evolutionary improvement, it would take billions of years for complex organisms like mammals to change from one species to another (since our population sizes and reproduction rates are orders of magnitude smaller than bacteria), whereas Darwinism requires that it happen in 10s/100s of 1000s of years. If E. coli could only evolve one major biological improvement in the equivalent of ~500K years of human evolution, why think all other animals have evolved thousands, if not millions of improvements during the same timeframe?
4. Why should it take so long for E. coli to develop this transport mechanism, when they’ve been swimming in citrate for so long?
5. All of the functionally beneficial changes observed in E.coli are the result of degrading the genome, not increasing biological information. But evolution requires that new genetic information be added to the cell, not that it be lost. While sometimes losing information can be beneficial to survival, evolution to higher organisms cannot be achieved by constantly giving up biological information. Thinking it can is like the merchant who lost a little money on each sale, but thought he could make it up on volume! The math doesn’t work. Eventually such a progression will lead to extinction, not advanced evolution.
Lenski has made various reports on his research, so I invite you to read through them and report back if you find any evidence of even a new gene being created through random mutation. I’m pretty confident you won’t find anything. He himself has described the ability to digest citrate as the “most profound change we have seen during the experiment.” And yet hundreds of new genes would be required to produce new biological systems necessary for speciation.
I’ll respond to the rest of your comment in a separate comment.
I share your enthusiasm for science, reason and critical thought. You are right to point out that chemistry, biology, geology and physics are excellent disciplines for learning about the nature of the physical universe.
I would humbly suggest, however, that these disciplines are not particularly useful at addressing equally legitimate existential questions such as:
1) Why does the universe even exist in the first place?
2) Why am I here?
3) Is there a God?
4) What happens after we die?
While science is extraordinarily adept at addressing the nuts and bolts of how the physical universe operates, it would simply be a category error to try and apply the scientific method to the questions above.
As such, it appears that Brian and others on this blog are legitimately trying to reconcile their respect for science with the existential meaning and value they derive from their faith in God and their respect for scripture.
As for malaria’s resistance to Chloroquine, we know what was required to develop such resistance: two simultaneous point mutations. We also know the odds of such a mutation happening: 1 in 100 billion billion. The only reason malaria was able to meet these odds is because they have population sizes so enormous (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) and reproduction rates so fast. By chance alone, one malarial cell will develop the combo mutation in 1 out of a billion people. But complex life cannot accomplish the same feat because our population sizes are so small and our reproduction times so long. That’s why microbiologist Allen Orr writes, “Given realistically low mutation rates, double mutants will be so rare that adaptation is essentially constrained to surveying—and substituting—one-mutational step neighbors. Thus if a double-mutant sequence is favorable but all single amino acid mutants are deleterious, adaptation will generally not proceed.”
Or consider HIV. The HIV virus mutates at a rate 10,000 times that of malaria. It only has 9 genes (vs. thousands in malaria), so every possible point mutation occurs in every infected person 10,000 to 100,000 times per day. Double point mutations like those that made malaria immune to Chloroquine occur in every person every day. In the past several decades, about every possible combination of up to six point mutations has occurred somewhere in the world. HIV has literally run the gamut of all possible mutations. And yet with all of these mutations in a population of 100 billion billion viruses, no new proteins have developed, no new biological systems have developed, and no new species have developed! HIV is still HIV. It still contains the same number of proteins, still performs the same function, and still binds to its host the same way it always has. There have been no significant biochemical changes. If macroevolution cannot happen in HIV, it cannot happen anywhere, because no other organism can reach the population sizes, reproduction rates, and mutation rate of HIV!
As for trusting the consensus, you should do so if they can marshal out good evidence. In the past, they just waived the magic wand of “random mutation + natural selection did it,” without telling us how it did it. They could relax since there was no way to really test the powers of random mutation and natural selection. But all that has changed now. Now we can test it, and have tested it, and it’s clear that it lacks the creative power required by Darwinism. If macroevolution was possible, we would see it occurring in the microbial world, and yet we don’t. Why? Because genetic variability has its limits. And if it has its limits, Darwin’s theory is dead.
To answer your question, no, I do not think what one believes on this issue is ultimately salvific. While I think certain scientific theories and theological views better fit the scientific and Biblical data than others, the most important issue in this debate is whether God is creator or not. I don’t care whether He created quickly or slowly, or through primary or secondary means, but I do care that He created. The real debate is between those who affirm that no creator was necessary, and those who affirm One is necessary; between those who affirm there is no evidence of a creator in nature, and those who affirm there is (and that it is empirically detectable).
Bluntly, you are arguing against a straw man. You are building up the evolutionary argument as one thing so it can be easy to take down. The moth argument is what people do use occasionally to demonstrate natural selection, not evolution.
And that to me is very problematic about the creationist/ID community (if I recall you are an ID proponent)….I found that essentially YEC people (though I am hesitant to be so overarching) argue against the evolution of 50 years ago. There were holes in evolution then and there are even holes now, but that does not negate the theory. The holes are being quickly filled in and it’s hard to keep up with.
So creationists go to a some problems of the past and say “this is what evolution is and look how wrong it is.” They don’t seem to bother to read up on the new discoveries on evolution and hide themselves behind a few odd arguments that science has admitted being problematic (moths are not problematic, just taken out of context). Such arguments: a focus on Haeckel’s drawings of embryos, primordial soup, and the archaeopteryx (which is especially troubling considering that I believe 12 have been found now but people are holding onto that one hoax).
Jason, what pro-evolution literature are you reading? While fairly simple, have you read coyne’s or Dawkins’ books that have come out about evolution that will serve as a kind of measuring stick for decades to come as to putting up a very stable argument for evolution that can be understood by the laymen.
@Jason, thank you, for your answer. How do you think evangelicalism and reformed theologians might answer that question?
@Joel, what books do you think present, in layman’s terms, the most solid view of the theory of evolution and natural selection? I am enjoying this discussion its just that, quite candidly and to my own chagrin, I am not well versed in the issues.
@Andrew, based on all the evidence you have culled through, what does it say to you about there being/not being a God? For the sake of argument, lets say i am trying to find my way through understanding life and its meaning and purpose. What would you share with me to help me in this journey?
@Brent, will you share any of your experience that led you to thinking that science and faith were mutually exclusive? I spoke with a guy the other day and he wanted to believe in God, he said, “if there is God and if he, like the Christian’s say, “loves us” then that would resolve a lot of angst in my life. But i just dont know that i can trust in that worldview.” Will you say anything that will help someone work through this existential impasse?
What a great conversation! As a follower of Jesus Christ, I fully embrace the Bible as the Word of God and that it should be taken literally except in those areas where it clearly makes use of symbolism and allegory. My understanding of His Word (as limited as it is) leads me to believe not only that He is the Creator but that He has always been. Therefore, He is certainly “old enough” to have created a trillion-year-old universe. He is also creative enough to engineer a universe from nothing. I believe strongly that I can detect His hand as I gaze at the sun, moon, stars, etc. At the same time, I can understand the path down which some scientists travel as they seek a naturalistic explanation for the origin all things. I’ll just throw out a few questions I have for which I am still curiously seeking a better answer (from the perspective of evolution) and then I’m going to play racquetball in an attempt to shed some weight that has evolved in my life over the past twenty years.
1. When I play racquetball, I shrink a little because I burn energy in terms of caloric units. If the sun is a ball of gas (simplistic explanation, I know) that has been burning energy for billions of years, how large must it have been in its earliest stage? If it were much larger than it is currently, life on earth would be untenable even during early recorded human history.
2. Why are there ocean-dwelling fish fossils on mountaintops? (Not necessarily related to the story of Creation, but the question could relate to the concept of a worldwide flood.)
3. If we follow the grand story of the origin of all things in reverse order, we eventually come to the beginning. The theory of evolution requires some thing with which to start the story (a sliver of a subatomic particle would be helpful to begin). This leaves unanswered the origin of that “thing.” Where did the original particle come from and “where” was it when it all began? If we start with something, we have no true origin. It we start with nothing, perhaps there is an Originator…
I am not denying evolution or that scientific research has confirmed evolution. Likewise, I am not suggesting that the Genesis narrative describes evolution. I am saying these are two totally different approaches to the same reality.
Let me allow for the possibility that “natural selection” could suffice for what we see. Does the data necessitate that God was not involved? Could I not see the same data and say, “Wow, that is really amazing that God created by this method of natural selection over millions of years?” If not, why not?
I guess my concern is that the metaphysical aspect is dismissed because it is not necessarily “needed”.
Joel, Why science would be associated with hoaxes to begin with is quite suspicious – the one which you give as an example is not an isolated case. There are dozens of examples similar to this. So as much as some attempt to be seen as purely “objective,” even in the scientific community there, among some, almost an underlying purpose (why else would a hoax exist). What happened to “follow the evidence wherever it leads?”
@Philip, that’s an interesting take. I never considered any material by Richard Dawkins to be humble, “I don’t know anything” demeanor, while his opponents are smug and arrogant. Richard Dawkins does not believe in God. Unfortunately, he like many atheists (contrast to a Deist) cannot be content with an “I don’t know,” but with an announcement of what they see is a “theistic lunacy.” Hardly humble, self-deprecation going on in Atheist land. Atheism is not where the majority of people are anyway. Most are, truly, in an ‘I’m not sure” or an “I’m not sure, and I don’t care” category.
The discussion has progressed. Some of you are definitely over my head as well.
I see this debate as one not really of Evolution vs. Creation, (though I’m sure there are some that see Creationism as a rival to Evolution), but the real question is rather one of beginnings. Again, it is my opinion that this isn’t even a legitimate question for the scientific community. An “I don’t know” from Science is what we should hear, rather than a “Anyone who believes in God is a fool” which is the rhetoric we’ve heard much recently. Science simply cannot postulate with metaphysical subjects. This is the field of Philosophy, and of course, Theism.
Science should remain consistent in its approach to ideas:
Science, theory, law.
The following quotes seem to have gone beyond that duty. I am providing these quotes for Philip, in response to his prior comments as well.
“Darwin’s theory 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.” Sir Julian Huxley, cited in David Noebel, “Understanding the Times.”
“Today, although many educators play it safe by calling evolutionary ideas ‘theory’ instead of ‘fact,’ there is no reputable biologist who doubts that species, including Homo sapiens, have developed with time, and that they are continually, though slowly, changing.” Isaac Asimov, “The Wellsprings of Life”\\
“Evolution is a fact amply demonstrated by the fossil record and by contemporary molecular biology. Natural selection is a successful theory devised to explain the fact of evolution.” Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden
“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).” Richard Dawkins, as cited in M. Hartwig, Challenging Darwin’s Myths
These quotes reveal an understanding of science far different than one of its pioneers, Johannes Kepler: “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God.”
Why does the point of origin seem like it can’t randomly happen?
Just because the chances of it being 1/1 gazillion, still seems like a plausible event happening if we’re gonna add a “higher power” into the mix.
I also wonder if we’re as complex as we truly think we are, and if we hold the capacity to understand our origins. I don’t know if we could understand what it makes to make “life” as much as a monkey could understand quantum physics
@Dawkins Quotes/materials – This guy is just the exact opposite of a religious zealot. They both have good messages, just awful at communicating them
Like many Christians from fundamentalist or evangelical roots, as a young man, I had experienced only a thin sliver of the wide range of Christian thought. I was completely unaware of the rich intellectual history of Christianity, and I maintained an extremely literalist approach to the interpretation of scripture. Also, I lacked a sound basis in reason for my faith, and was a Christian, more-or-less by default.
As a Biblical literalist, I initially assumed, for example, that the earth was $6,000 years old based on my understanding of the book of Genesis. When I took my first geology course and discovered a copious amount of evidence indicating the earth was much older, I simply was not equipped to reconcile that information with my understanding of scripture. Similarly, the information I gleaned from biology courses, archeology courses, anthropology courses, etc., conflicted with my literalist approach to scripture.
The conflict created a sort of cognitive dissonance in my untrained mind. In other words, my religious beliefs were logically inconsistent with the fairly convincing information I was learning in college, causing me a great deal of angst and confusion. In light of the information I was learning in college, I became incapable of maintaining my view of scripture; and I was unaware at the time, of the wide array of alternative views of scriptural interpretation espoused by other varieties of Christians.
Because my faith was 1) not grounded in reason, 2) predicated on a particularly brittle interpretation of scripture, and 3) mainly the result of my surroundings (instead of my own hard-fought conviction), it slowly began to unravel.
Within a few years, I had utterly abandoned my faith in God, Christ, Christianity, and anything that smacked of religious belief. I became an agnostic, and viewed Christians as weak-minded, deluded and foolish. I more-or-less maintained that position for several years. I obtained a degree in Religious Studies and Anthropology from ASU and then studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University.
To make a long story short, around 2004, my father, who was a Pentecostal Pastor, was diagnosed with a terminal illness. His illness and eventual death, caused me to begin seriously re-evaluating the core principles guiding my life. His loss challenged me to re-examine my own beliefs and presumptions. And his loss forced me to re-evaluate the basic existential questions that had haunted me for years: Why am I here? Is there a God? What happens after we die?
My careful exploration of those questions has ultimately led me to a place of reconciliation with God and with my family. And I’ve discovered a sense of wholeness and equanimity that I had never known before. I have also discovered that one need not choose between one’s faith and one’s reason. Rather, faith and reason are complementary gifts that, when exercised judiciously, bring a great deal of joy and peace into one’s life.
That’s the short version. Will tell more this Saturday at San Francisco Lighthouse. http://sflighthouse.com/
@GreenGodzilla I’m not sure it can be fully communicated to us how unlikely a plausibility of random creation is. For starters, nothing-nothing into something! Secondly, the elements required for life are so exact and precise that using time as the “magic wand” seems convenient, but simply impossible… at least at random.
Good point about our capacity to understand our origins.
Brent: The questions you want answered are immaterial in a cosmic sense. Would you be content to know that there is no reason for the universe to exist, let alone for humans to? Would you be content to know that there is no god and that when you die, you just… die? Does it make sense to you that no matter how much you have invested in the answers to these questions, they may very well be complete null answers?
Jason: We have plenty of evidence for macro evolution. Once again, read The Greatest Show on Earth. I was written as a direct response to people like you who claim otherwise.
Jeffrey: From what I know about how life, the universe and everything works, there is no place where a god exerts any interference. My only conceding point would be that if a god did exist, it created all matter and the laws of physics, made everything go “BOOM” and then walked away. Every instance in history that we assumed was the work of god or supernatural has been found, after sufficient inquiry, to be NOT god or anything supernatural. Therefore, there is no reason to even concede that point yet. We’re still learning. Furthermore, our perspective of history, looking from the present into the past, blocks us from acknowledging the many things that happened that had absolutely nothing to do with us being here. We think we’re special, but we’re really not. What I can say is that a sufficient understanding of the Black Swan effect, the Chaos Theory, and embryology (down to the molecular level) can help one come to terms with the reality around them and how it works.
Brian: It is easy to look at the magnificent world, from the micro to the macro and say, “Wow, this is amazing! It must be the work of god!” It takes more courage to actually look at every stage of the process, to follow it up from the molecular composition of a protein all the way to a forest of trees competing for sunlight. When you understand that the only thing that drives every process along the way is chemistry, god’s presence shrinks. Then, when you look at the world, the cosmos, and history, and you realize that our sense of probability is skewed because of our perspective, the “specialness” of being human starts to fade. When you take it all together, you start to see that there is no purpose, no intrinsic reason for any of this at all. Once you reach that point, you’re free. Some people are afraid of that point… they think that without a god-given purpose, the world will burn down. As someone without a god-given purpose, I find life quite fulfilling.
Spoken like a true existentialist. Very clearly put, I might add.
I must respect Andrew’s response as not being as brash as an atheist, while still being as skeptical as an Epicureanist.
Andrew, I don’t have the capacity to analyze every chemical process of life, though I realize there are a few that are able. Among those, many have been astounded at the apparent Design and plan of creation (Anthony Flew one of those notables). It’s not just marvel (though at my life, a surfer-dude “Whoa… Cool!” is about fitting), it’s pure amazement at the complexity of life, to where young students are reminded “even though it looks designed, we must remember that it’s not.” From the eye on a peacock feather, to the human eye itself. The exact necessities of life, etc. Outside of the material evidence, we must look into moral properties, and ask how it is we get a moral law. This topc fills volumes of books. In short, it’s quite difficult to suppose a moral law without an objective moral agent.
If there is Design, we have a starting point to discuss and ponder. If this Designer, in fact, related and interacted with His Creation, we can begin to discuss how it is that this Divine One has done so.
I don’t have all the answers to your statements, but I’m definitely enjoying the discussion and await others to chime back in.
Thanks for your questions. Candidly, I’m happy to concede the possibility that all I believe in is false. It certainly is possible that life has no meaning whatsoever. It certainly is possible that there is nothing beyond the tangible/physical/material universe. Of course, it’s conceivable that human conceptions of God are merely the result of our over-active imaginations. It’s possible that we are merely afraid of death, and as a result we generate extensive myths full of pleasant and fanciful creatures that will keep us safe in the imaginary after-world. Yes, it’s possible that religion is merely the opiate of the masses and a crutch to the psychologically weak. One would be a fool to not concede these possibilities. However, I just don’t find them to be terribly persuasive. It simply seems unlikely to me that all that exists came into being on its own (or that it always existed). Similarly, it seems unlikely to me that if in fact a deity created the world that the deity would merely walk away from it. Rather, I find it more plausible that the universe is the result of someone’s conscious effort, and that that someone remains interested in it. (Perhaps I’m extrapolating from my own experience — my wife and I made a kid a couple years ago, and I’m still pretty interested in him. I’m assuming if someone made the universe, he’s likely curious about how his creation is doing.)
I suppose I would be remiss to not ask you whether you are equally capable of conceding the possibility that I’m right. If so, I am more than happy to respectfully disagree with you. I genuinely understand where you’re coming from, and held a view similar to yours for roughly ten years. In fact, I may have held a view even more ardent than yours, as you seem to be flirting with the possibility of deism.
P.S. As a former atheist myself, take my advice — don’t concede the possibility of a deity if you want to maintain a strictly naturalistic worldview — it gets really messy. Next thing you know, you might want to start praying to the thing!
You sound like a really bright guy, Andrew, and I’m glad to hear you find life so fulfilling. Good luck as you continue to explore.
Brent: I maintain that the MORE you learn about the universe, the less likely you are to see the work of any god. This is why a vast majority of modern scientists are atheists. Read Carl Sagan’s Demon-Haunted World. For a different approach, read The Black Swan. Changing your perspective will reveal new ideas. When you use words like “unlikely” it tells me that there is still room for you to learn, if you have the will to do so. I do remain capable of conceding that you’re right, but my decisions are based on evidence, not faith. I consider myself a hard atheist, so my concession is merely an appeal to your point of view; I don’t think there was a creator and I won’t think so until there is evidence that says so.
I took a look at your blog. I mean it when I say I totally get where you’re coming from. I could not help but smile as I read through the general principles you espouse — they are deeply familiar to me — and as I mentioned before, I shared them for many years.
Your philosophy appears to culminate in the following worldview, which I quote from your blog: “If there is no creator, there is no motivation behind our existence. There is no reason for anything to exist beyond the cosmetic justifications we give. We are simply the byproduct of the chemical reactions of the universe. Knowing this, let’s enjoy it while it lasts. For best results: make sure others enjoy it, too.”
While nihilism has its appeal, I personally find it relatively shallow and logically circular. For example, to argue that we are merely the byproduct of the chemical reactions of the universe fails to address the larger issue of how and why those chemicals (and the resulting universe) exist at all.
Our disagreement boils down very simply:
The longer I look at the universe, the more I become convinced that somebody made it.
The longer you look at the universe, the more you become convinced that it came into existence of its own volition.
Both my position and yours require us to make presumptions about the nature of the universe that we cannot unequivocally know at present.
And so, we look at the same evidence and arrive at radically different conclusions. Fortunately, this is a fact issue, meaning that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Obviously I am persuaded that the more seriously one takes this question, and the more one applies oneself to understanding the entire span of human experience, the more likely it is that one will arrive at the conclusion that there’s somebody bigger than us who is responsible for our existence and who genuinely cares for us.
I would only encourage you to apply the same level of scrutiny and intellectual rigor to the precepts that undergird your atheism/nihilism that you apply to other world views. You may be surprised what you find.
Hey…for tons of incredible information on ‘theistic evolution’ check out http://www.biologos.org. So incredibly helpful for me when wrestling with these issues.
P.S. I agree with much of Sagan’s logic. For example, Sagan argues that one should think skeptically and critically when faced with any new or novel idea.
For example, if someone says, “God created the universe,” we should think critically and skeptically about that assertion to discover whether or not it is a reasonable assertion.
Likewise, if someone says, “No one created the universe; it spontaneously arose from nothing for no reason,” we should examine that assertion critically as well.
Based on my experience, when I see an object (be it a leaf, a child or a locomotive) I deduce that that object derived from an earlier source. The leaf came into existence as a result of a tree — the child came into existence as a result of the procreative act of his parents — the locomotive came into existence as a result of a number of engineers and workmen.
In fact, I’ve never witnessed any piece of matter appear spontaneously on its own (except at magic shows). Thus, I am skeptical of your assertion that the universe (and all of the matter it comprises) came into existence of its own accord.
When I look at the matter that makes up the universe, I deduce, based on reason and experience, that it did not come into existence on its own. I conclude that something or someone preceeded and produced it. That seems a more reasonable proposition to me than your theory that matter simply appeared out of nothing.
In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, but I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that matter can spontaneously come into existence on its own. So, I logically conclude that matter does not spontaneously come into existence on its own. Thus, the notion that all of the matter in the entire universe came into existence on its own requires too much faith for my taste.
@Jeff: Books for the layman: Favorite summary-”Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne.
Favorite Theistic Evolutionist book: “Creation or Evolution: Does it Matter?” by Denis Alexander. Most other theistic evolutionists condescend Christianity, but Alexander is a spirit filled Christian and sympathizes with the view.
@James: There have been hoaxes in the past, and there will continue to be hoaxes regarding false evolutionist evidence. But we cannot throw the science out because of a few crazy ideologues, no more than we can throw Christianity out because there have been a few crazy cultists that bore the name of Christ as their cause.
And there have been plenty of hoaxes from the creationists as well including the Glen Rose footprints where human footprints were found next to dinosaur tracks. Of course this has been refuted, but there are still plenty of websites claiming it as truth despite even Henry Morris (foremost creationist scientist) admitting it was a hoax.
Also someone mentioned the fossils on top of the Rocky mountains pointing to a great flood. Evolutionists rather see this as evidence of convergence of mountains……The land was once an ocean bed (hence ocean fossils) and then two faults converged and mountains develop (this process takes millions and millions of years)…
Brent: When you look at the vastness of the universe, you realize that we are not the main attraction. Life is no more special than the amazing things taking place in far away galaxies. There also may be intelligent life elsewhere (which is quite likely), but we have not encountered it because of the sheer vastness of the world. The fact that we can think about this is also not very special, simply because many of us don’t seem to be able to use our thinking ability without including ourselves.
I really don’t like the “origin” discussion, but you’ve brought it up, so I’ll address it. You are essentially invoking “God of the Gaps.” That is, “We don’t know, so it must be god.” Alas, everything else we didn’t know before has turned out to be not god, so why should this be any different? I have made no claims about how the universe came to be, so you CANNOT say that I assert “that the universe came into existence of its own accord.” You are putting words in my mouth. If you were to ask me instead, I would say that I don’t know yet. You’re asserting that there are only two possible answers to that question, which is even more illogical.
I can but help think that your explanation would lead us to be very unsure of our ability to think and do science at all. If I see the complexity of everything and the only cause is chemistry who is to say that my chemistry is not all messed up? Maybe my chemistry makes me believe in this or that or my case God. It seems a bit unstable.
Unless I’m missing something, there are only three options to describe the possible origins of the universe:
(1) it was created by something other than itself;
(2) it came into existence of its own accord; or
(3) it has always existed.
(Can you think of any other options?)
I’m assuming that if you reject number (1) for lack of evidence, then you have encountered some evidence for number (2) or number (3). I would love to see it.
I have yet to encounter any piece of matter that generated its own existence — so the notion that all of the matter in the universe self-generated seems highly unlikely. (I’m glad to hear you are not espousing that theory — it’s goofy, and wouldn’t stand up to even the mildest scientific scrutiny).
Further, all of the scientific evidence that I’m aware of points to the proposition that the universe began at a single instant (around 14 or so billion years ago). In other words, the universe has not always existed. So, number (3) appears as unlikely as number (2).
Now, if you can propose an awesome number (4), I would be more than happy to consider it. Otherwise, number (1) remains most plausible, and seems to comport best with the observable data.
Good catch, man! I was wondering whether anyone would note that. Yeah, basically my assertion takes us into philosophy 101.
Specifically, Aristotle’s conception of the Unmoved Mover:
“1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can’t happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.”
Of course Aristotle’s insights weren’t totally unique, and they are certainly not definitive, but let’s be honest, the guy was pretty sharp.
Good locking horns with you, my man! I appreciate the fact that you are striving so ardently to get to the heart of the matter. Keep it up. If you’re in SF this weekend, come by the SF Lighthouse Church, where we’ll be hammering through some of this stuff. [It will be very low key and people from all philosophical perspectives are welcome.] Alternatively, if you or anyone else on this blog want to continue this conversation, I’m at beroam@yahoo.com. I’ll likely keep checking this blog through the weekend. Yours, B.
Joel,
My point for bringing up the hoaxes in science was not to repudiate science, it was to skeptically question motives. It’s obviously clear that the Creationist hoaxes were to help them “prove” Creationism. We could almost accept this from an idealogue, but why is there such a insistence in the scientific community? It causes me to wonder why someone who is only concerned with scientific method and proveable data would care to postulate, unscientifically, a theory. In other words, the MULTIPLE hoaxes and dishonest science (as well as dogmatic, brash, matter-of-fact statements) about unproved things should cause one to ask why.
To your support of evolution. Is it Theistic evolution which you espouse? Do you believe Gen 2 that God created man from the dust of the ground? Do you see this as a fancy metaphor instead and that man evolved from another species? If so, how is it that man was uniquely created in the Image of God?
The jellyfish might have “evolved” (hehehe) from something else, or even been “created” as a byproduct of something else also. At which point, it would have had a start, and no “creator/god” in that sense (it would have been a byproduct or mutation).
So replace that now with the current universe as a whole. Does this make sense? if not I can retry phrasing it.
If it were more like a cycle, like the life of the jellyfish, would there still be an infinite # of causes?
The basic: The universe is flat, allowing for a zero sum of energy and mass. This means that the universe could have come into existence without a creator. If you have 7 min, watch from 33:00 to 40:00, but it leaves out a lot of the context.
I repeat that the more we know, the less we need god to explain.
Joel,
My point in bringing forward the information about hoaxes, is not that one side is to be reprimanded and the other is clean-handed.
One is not overly surprised by an idealogue making such a claim (and certainly a claim not made on the basis of science), but science is (and rightly so) given a certain reverence because their domain is only things that are provable through the scientific method, not philosophical musings or positions one way or the other in philosophical playgrounds. Which leads us to wonder WHY the scientific community has had ANY association with such hoaxes? It’s a healthy skepticism of motives.
Piltdown Man, Java Man, Zinjanthropus, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, Taung Child, Lucy, Ramapithecus… and one and one the we could go.
So again, my point was not to “throw away science” at the knowledge of science’s tract record with hoaxes. Rather, it was only to inject some healthy skepticism in a field that we trust because of its claimed objectivism. Furthermore, science, like you and I, is constantly humbled by positions that are never settled for too long before we discover something else. That’s the beauty of science. It’s not dogma, it’s observation!
A Creationist’s footprint is obviously contrived to tamper evidence to support the idea of a Creator God. But what is the motive of the scientist whose only aim is to “follow the evidence wherever it may lead?”
RE the flood. Are you not surprised that evolutionists don’t see the evidence through the lens of scripture? They shouldn’t! It’s not their job. They are finding physical explanations, which they call “convergence.”
Concerning your appeal to Lenski’s experiments; you are aware that the “biologists” that you say you have read on this appear to be the same ones who are now infamous in the creation debate for their “quote mining” and flagrant… uh, “misrepresentations?’
Lenski’s experiment involved 12 nearly identical strains of e.coli which were separated and have been observed for over 50,000 generations now.
“Since the experiment’s inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Prof. Lenski’s responses to to your apparent source (or your source’s source), Andrew Schafly, on this matter is a legend in the Creation/Evolution debate. http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair
I’ve read your blog Jason, and was impressed at the time that you were generally a careful thinker. To see you have swallowed the “Lenski Affair” hook, line and sinker is disappointing and I think, atypical of your usual manner.
I think Prof. McGrath’s guidance that is quoted above is most helpful.
I’ll describe two “creation stories” to you, and you guys can guess which ones they are:
Story A
1. Starts with a formless mass, and describes how an all-powerful actor divided that mass and made of it the visible world. Its culmination is the creation of the human community (represented by a man and a woman), in relationship with that all-powerful actor.
2. Aims to provide definitive answers to questions specific to its time and place of origin, using the language and metaphors of its time and place of origin, questions like, “Why are we here?” “Who did we come from?” “Why is our world–the one we’re in right now–the way it is today?” And most importantly, “How should we relate to each other and to God?” (These questions also happen to be ones that many of us are still grappling with.)
3. Is fixed in form, and no longer open for revisions.
Story B
1. Starts with nothing, and describes how that nothing became something via the action of naturally occuring phenomena and impersonal forces, and how that something became the world we inhabit.
2. Hopes to generate an ongoing series of approximately better, but always provisional, answers to questions specific to its time and place of origin, like why the natural world appears to have the properties that our investigations seem to indicate that it has. In other words, a particular community practicing a particular method of inquiry has generated specific questions about apparent features of the natural world, and one corner of that community specializes in generating answers to those specific questions.
3. Is constantly and actively being changed and tweaked.
What kind of person abuses Story A by trying to force it to answer the questions that Story B was designed to answer? I think the answer is, the kind of person who’s ignorant about where Story A came from, and the kinds of questions its authors had in mind, and why they carefully crafted it the way they did.
I find that the more people know about Story A, the more they resist attempts to disfigure it and misappropriate it by trying to turn it into Story B.
And of course, an even further insult (and a more recent development) is when, in the name of defending Story A, people take the life’s work of those who contribute to Story B and actively misrepresent and misappropriate it. Shame on them for bearing false witness.
I’m sitting back enjoying this discussion and learning a bit. Unfortunately, my science background, the majority of it Biblical literalist, very conservative evangelical “christian” school, has left me limited in my ability to really join in this conversation. However, I’ve struggled for years with the views held forth by creationists and the ID crowd, whom, I feel, only add to an us vs. them conflict rather than a meaningful conversation. Sadly, I was always told that to deny the literal nature of Genesis was to deny the existence of God. This lead me to a place where I was somewhat afraid of science, feeling as if I were betraying my faith. Today I see the creation story as a metaphor originally written to simple people for whom a scientific textbook would have not use. Having left the view of Genesis as an historical/literal account, I find a greater value and meaning to the text when I read it as a message of God’s control over the natural world, particularly those things we fear.
It is not an abuse of story A to say that (1) it uses the language of the Ancient Near East to capture a truth about God, (2) it is not a scientific text, and (3) one can affirm what it is saying in principle while affirming evolution.
It is not an abuse of story B to say (1) it is accurate science but as science has shown us there is always more to reality than we know at the present time, (2) questions of God can be addressed by science but not determined since this takes, in part, the contribution of philosophy and theology.
I think you are drawing a black-and-white either/or here that does not need to exist. There are some great minds who embrace evolution and the authority of the Scriptures. Alister McGrath has a Ph.D. from Oxford in both biology and theology. Alvin Plantiga is a famous philosopher from the University of Notre Dame that argues that theistic evolution makes more sense than naturalism. These are brilliant men.
While you have the right to disagree with them I think you are going too far acting as if this bridge is simply an impossible one to cross and that only idiots try to reconcile these two views of reality.
[...] of either (1) misreading the Scriptures or (2) not understanding evolution (e.g. this conversation here despite the work of people like Alister McGrath and Alvin [...]
Someone asked for a more Evangelical/Fundamentalist representation in the discussion. Here’s probably the leading site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
The bulk of my post was directed at creationists (young-earth or otherwise), who aim to match up the Genesis text with different parts of science’s creation narrative. This is a fool’s errand, and it’s this kind of thing that I think amounts to an abuse of the text borne mainly of ignorance.
The abuses of the ID crowd, which I took a swipe at in the very end of my post, are of a different order. First, though, let’s be clear what I did not say and do not believe about ID proponents: such people are neither uniformly ignorant or uniformly uncredentialed. A number of prominent ID folks have a top-notch academic pedigree, and I wouldn’t characterize any of them as “idiots.”
The problem I have with ID is that its main proponents, and the institution that constitutes its public face (the Discovery Institute) are just flat-out dishonest. They have a track record of agenda-drive, intellectual dishonesty when they engage with biologists, and when they talk to the public and to policymakers they employ a fundamentally dishonest frame in their attemts to hide their true agenda.
We cover the ID wars quite a bit at Ars Technica, and this review of the DI’s attempt at a “textbook” pretty much sums up what’s wrong with the movement’s leading lights:
The “teach the controversy” frame is pushed by ID proponents not because they’re merely interested in pointing out “problems” and “flaws” with evolution, and they want to make sure that students have “all the facts” and “hear all sides.” That’s just a stance that they take in order to dress up their arguments and materials in secular garb so that they can slip them into the classroom.
And what I’ve said here isn’t just my opinion–they’ve laid out the whole hidden agenda quite clearly in the infamous wedge document, which was leaked onto the web and essentially exposes the dishonesty at the root of what they’re about:
The point of the “teach the controversy” is to further a moral and theological agenda.
I have no problem with attempts to further a moral and theological agenda in the public square, as long as everyone’s cards are face up. But this business of bait-and-switch, and of dressing theology and moralism in science drag to get it past secular watchdogs and into the classroom, is itself dishonest and immoral.
Obviously not all ID proponents are dishonest abusers of science, like the folks at the DI. But so many of them appear to be, and they don’t think twice about either twisting someone else’s work, or about repeating the misrepresentations of a tendentious source without bothering to do basic fact checing.
I’ll end this post with an infamous quote from Christina Rigth activist Ralph Reed, on his approach to politics and winning elections:
“I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare, I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag.”
This whole “we’re actively work to hide what we are until we’ve got our hooks in you”, or “lying for the Lord” as it’s called, is for some reason endemic to evangelical culture, and the DI’s dishonesty is just another expression of it. This sort of thing is a big reason why people don’t trust Christians. These ID people are, by and large, as dangerous to the Church as they are to modernity.
@Rustin So is only the creation story a metaphor, or the entire book?
Did God really speak to Moses? Did plagues really, truly come upon Egypt? Was the sea really divided before them?
Where does this stop? All the way until we’ve reduced the Bible to something that is comfortable for us? Until there is no supernatural? Until God is no more than a human imagination?
If you believe in the supernatural, and in a Divine Creator, why do we insist on limiting him?
Obviously, this post is an aside to those on here that have a starting point of believing in God.
I thought that this quote was relevant to the discussion.
“Evolution does not require the nonexistance of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistance of God more than they fear God Himself.” [Keith Doyle
The document’s introduction is essentially a standard “utopia, then the subtle entrance of a malignant influence, then a fall into complete and widespread debachery” narrative that will be familiar to anyone who has read Genesis. And of course the more recent, more relevant antecedent to the document’s opening decline-and-fall narrative is heresiological literature. As early as Iranaeus, you get this narrative of an ideal, righteous Christian community that is spoiled by the introduction of false doctrine, which turns peoples’ hearts away from God and which must be corrected by right teaching.
But the point that I want to make about the wedge document’s intro is that it diagnoses the present day’s ills as the result of creeping “materialism” (a modern phenomenon in the authors’ view), and its proposed cure is “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.” But these two claims–that society’s problem is materialism, and that the answer is the complete overthrow of materalism–are profoundly theological claims. Not only that, but these claims actually compete with the Bible’s answer to the question of, “what is wrong with humanity, and how do we fix it?” Or, at least, that’s how it seems to me.
It’s my impression as a Christian that Bible diagnoses humanity as having a pretty serious sin problem, the cure for which is Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice. This sin problem is not culturally specific–it was with us before Darwin and Marx, and will be with us until The End. And addressing it is the work of every Christian, one day and one person at a time.
Ultimately, I just don’t see how anyone can reconcile the Discovery Institute’s program of intellectual transformation as a route to moral transformation, with the plain message of scripture that our hearts and morals are transformed by our relationship with Jesus Christ.
So the Discovery Institute has their own little “Garden, then original sin” narrative, and their little own plan of salvation that’s separate from the one found in the New Testament. And in their effort their person-driven plan of salvation, they engage in some pretty questionable tactics. In short, they sound to me like old-fashioned heretics.
If word defines science (evolution) and faith (creator); is it not pertinent that these stories of faith have passed from one generation to another? Aside from Genesis they are not relevant to the evolution of man; but significant in the meaning and being a man.
And for these stories to be passed through time as they have, to be experienced by those of abundance or little or of no faith; has developed a far greater truth in my perspective of life than any fact producing chemist or alchemist may discover in his attempt to discover the importance of algae or protein or it’s significance to human evolution.
Evolution does not end in the understanding of the beginning. Evolution resides in man and its path has many pavers.
Did anyone ever address the topic concerning Direct Creation? (Especially my brothers who are Theistic evolutionists)
A fundamental truth theologically from Genesis accounts is the direct creation of man. This set man apart from the animals. God breathed into man, making him a living soul. He formed him with his own hands. He was specifically designed and created in His image.
If one believes in theistic evolution, what do they do with direction creation?
Day/Age Creationist. based on the fact the word in Hebrew used in the creation account in Genesis is Yom. meaning Day or Age depending on the context. so in light of the fact there where no 24 hr days in the beginning of creation, the word Yom is most likely Age. which implies an on specified number of years.
I don’t believe in Macro evolution. i believe God made a resilient creation with the ability to adapt to environment. scientific term for this: micro evolution.
recommended book: Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
Hi folks,
My name is Steve and I am an atheist. Like it’s a 12 step program, eh. Anyway, I have been having this discussion (argument) with a devout Catholic over the last few days about religion in general and some specifics about the reconciliation of evolution and Genesis. Raised a Catholic myself but having paid little attention to this ongoing debate for years I was actually somewhat surprised to find out that the Catholic Church has actually come up with a workable theory (for lack of a better word) to marry evolution to existing church doctrine. I find that very confusing even accepting the view that God’s days are in fact “God sized” there is so much more to be explained. I’ve tried to wade through some of text surrounding this joining of God and science and to be honest I find it daunting to wrap my head around. I’ve always found paradoxes with the bible and the belief in God as it pertains to mankind anyway and this just further reinforces those paradoxes. My first problem with the bible is if it truly is the word of God albeit written by the hand of man why is it so full of contradiction? So open to interpretation? So fluid as to lend itself to revisement and reinterpretation? It makes no sense that a being deemed omnipotent would author a guide to life that wouldn’t be simple to understand for all the beings whom He supposedly loves. The second thing is if the Catholic Church now accepts evolution as merely an aspect of God’s act of creation did there not have to be a compromise of sorts? That begs the question of who is acting on God’s behalf? I always believed that no man could endeavor to speak for God. Lastly, I do not seek debate or argument (already got that going on elsewhere) and I am not an activist in any atheist movements…I’m actually a loner who merely doesn’t believe but I do want to address the argument people of faith often put forth to attest to the existence of God that goes something like this: If there is no God why does everything seem so symmetrical? Perfect in a sense that we exist here on this planet just the right distance from our energy source and all appears to be put together in such a way that can be no accident. To that I say in an infinite universe with infinite suns and planets etc. does it not make mathematical sense that the neccessary conditions for life to start, grow and flourish would exist on at least some planetsWe just got lucky. The same principle applies to events on earth that are often regarded as miracles. A person who has cancer is suddenly cured for reasons we can’t explain…there are 6 billion of us…there will be unexplained events, doesn’t prove God did it.
March 29th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Can’t there be both? I often feel that God created man perfect and in that, man was whole…genetically. All the genes of man were compiled, and active, in Adam and Eve. But after the fall, the evilness of discrimination was one of the things that festered in the hearts of man. People began to separate on traits, perhaps catalyzed with Babylon, leading to the the separation of races. As like grouped with like, the mix of genes washed out. That in itself is evolution, the altering of genes by surroundings.
March 29th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I was homeschooled in a staunchly conservative christian household and taught that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) was the only possible interpretation of the Genesis story. God created the universe in 7 literal 24-hour periods about 6000 years ago, and only crazy atheists believe in Evolution. Looking back many years later, I find it incredibly improbable that anyone could come to such a conclusion based on an unbiased review of the evidence, which almost universally points to a universe and earth that’s billions of years old and a process of macroevolution responsible for creating all life on earth over hundreds of millions of years. The evidence against YEC is so overwhelming that I could only believe such a position if I believed that God set everything up to look like the opposite in order to test our faith. And I have no reason to believe that.
The core of this issue, however, goes much deeper than origins for me, to the root of what we believe and why. Humanity is flawed, and our interpretation of scripture must therefore also be flawed. When our interpretation collides with reality, as it has in the genesis story over the last 150 years, how we respond reveals much about the nature of our belief system. If we stick our heads in the sand and ignore the reality around us, clinging stubbornly to an interpretation proven wrong over and over again, it raises the question of why we believe in this Book at all?
Ultimately, much of the “creation science” that I’ve seen is not about science at all, but about proving a position that its proponents held to begin with. Science is about a search for the truth, not a gathering of evidence for a truth already assumed. Creation science is a top-down approach to knowledge, starting with its conclusion and seeking evidence to support it, while attacking, ignoring, or discrediting the evidence to the contrary. True science, and any honest search for truth begins at the bottom, and follows the evidence to its conclusion, regardless of whether it makes the searcher happy or fits their notions of the world.
My view on evolution today stems from my perspective on faith and science, and my opinion that they must be reconciled in order to be credible. My personal interpretation of the Genesis story falls under the broad category of Theistic Evolution, or the view that God created the beginning and the processes (including evolution) that gave birth to the world we live in today. I personally find no conflict between this belief and the other parts of my faith, but others may, and they must seek out the issue for themselves. But ultimately, I think that Christians have a responsibility to love God with their minds and to use the tools of logic He has given us to discover the truth in the world. If I come to the point where reality is irreversibly unable to be reconciled to the tenets of my faith, I’ll walk away from that faith. How could I not? As Paul said, if our faith is based on a lie, and we hope for Christ in this life only, we are to be pitied above all men. Why persist in a belief system that is completely divorced from reality?
March 29th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
As Ryan attests to, the creation vs. evolution debate has largely been reduced to a debate on the age of the Earth. This is unfortunate, because it misses the forest for the trees. The real debate is on whether all that we see is the product of blind naturalistic processes, or the result of a designing intelligence.
When it comes to evolution, the mechanism is what matters. Natural selection working on random mutation is said to be the driving force for evolutionary change. Until recently, there was no real way to evaluate the power of random mutation + natural selection (RM+NS) to generate biological novelty/complexity/information. Studies in microbiology, however, have changed that.
If there is any place in the biological world where we should see evolution occuring it is in the microbial world since they have the three things needed for evolutionary development: large population sizes, short reproduction cycles, and fast mutation rates (time is virtually irrelevant). So what do we find when we examine microbes?: that RM+NS cannot generate biological novelties.
Richard Lenski has been culturing E.coli for more than 44K generations. That corresponds to roughly 800K years of human evolution. What has RM+NS produced? Virtually nothing. No new proteins. No new biological systems. It’s still E.coli, and still functions in the same way. What little innovation is has experienced has been the result of breaking existing cellular machinery, not contructing new machinery. That’s the opposite of evolution! In fact, some strains of E.coli are mutating at rates 70x faster than normal, causing the genome to devolve (losing genetic information).
Or consider malaria. For it to develop a resistance to the anti-malaria drug Chloroquine, it had to experience just two coordinated random mutations. The odds of it doing so are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000. Because the population size is so large (1 trillion cells in each of the 1 billion infected people) it can overcome the odds. For humans to experience a comparable mutation would take 20 billion years (5x longer than the whole history of life)! And what would we get for our wait? A transformation from one organism into another? No. A new biological system to help advance us toward the next stage of evolution? No. A new protein? No. We would only get an existing gene broken in a way that just-so-happens to help us survive.
RM+NS may be able to produce small changes in organisms (and usually by breaking things, not building things), but not macro-evolutionary changes. And yet, that’s what’s needed for Darwin’s theory to be successful. If RM+NS lack the power to produce large-scale changes in organisms, then there is good reason to reject the thesis that blind, naturalistic processes alone can explain the diversity of life. The evidence points in another direct: intelligence.
March 29th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Jason,
I’m not a biologist, but I think you’re misrepresenting Richard Lenski’s experiment and the implications of his research. It’s been pretty widely regarded as more evidence for evolution. More importantly, your post makes a very valuable point that is often overlooked in these discussions: evolution and biology are very complex. The people who work in these fields have spent their lives working on these problems and still don’t understand much of it. The complexity is such that non-experts in the field are almost totally at the mercy of those who understand it enough to push their viewpoint. For example, I found this comment on a post similar to yours that tried to use this experiment as evidence for ID:
“Just because a trait requires multiple mutations doesn’t mean it precludes Darwinian evolution. Chloroquine resistance for example likely involves a complex metabolic pathway for detoxification. The proteins necessary for this resistance could have easily been altered by generations of relatively silent mutations that in combination allowed the plasmodium to survive the chloroquine. Nothing about this explanation goes against Darwinian evolutionary thought.”
I have no idea what that means, and I’m fine with admitting that. I recognize that this subject is inherently complex, and I’m continuing to further my knowledge and try to understand it. In the meantime, I also recognize that the vast majority of men and women who have dedicated their lives to studying evolutionary biology and related fields agree that random mutations + natural selection are the mechanisms by which evolution takes place. I don’t trust this consensus blindly, but I have far, far more reason to trust that broad consensus than I do to trust the occasional disagreeing scientists here or there, many of which seem to be Christians (and some of which work for the Discovery Institute…hmmm), and thus seem far more likely to have started with their conclusion and be on a search for evidence to back it up.
Here’s a few articles for anyone else interested:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
March 30th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Science is an evolving belief system. Less than 2000 years ago the foremost scientists thought there were only 1000 stars in the sky and any belief contrary to that by the leading philosophers and thinkers would have been looked at as ridiculous and— think we’ve heard this one– “unprovable”. Time has now told that story. The more we know, in science, the more we don’t know- so it seems.
Unfortunately, if anybody has seen the documentary, Expelled, we recognize that the science community is overwhelmingly pressured to espouse views of anti-creation and does not abide by its own ideas of purely “searching for the truth”. Instead, if any evidence suggests anything contrary to its sacred evolution theory, the data is essentially discarded. Modern day scientists feel forced to only gather and publish evidence for a truth already assumed- evolution. (and so that argument goes both ways)
A documentary that looks like an interesting watch- http://www.testoffaith.com
March 30th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Another thing I think about sometimes is – do I believe that God could have created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Sure. Would this be unscientific? Not necessarily. God could have created the world to look billions of years old the same way he could have created humans as adults. ‘Adam and Eve’ didn’t necessarily start out as babies if you read Genesis literally. Maybe the earth didn’t start out that way either if God started the timeline further down the path of development/evolution.
On the other hand, God could have created a framework for the universe that allowed for the process of evolution to shape the world over time.
I am willing to believe that God is big enough that he could have done it either way, and regardless of which it is, I’m not sure it makes a difference in how we should live our lives; except that spending a ton of time to ‘disprove’ evolution probably isn’t the most effective use of our time (scientific study and debate for fun is great, I just don’t think anyone should hang their theological hat on the scientific theories on this issue)
March 30th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
I understand that this thread is concerned with the ongoing debate between creation and evolution but let me just throw this out there real quick: who cares?
If you believe that your God is the omnipotent creator of the entire universe, telling him how he did or didn’t create life on Earth seems… rather silly. He did what he did because he did it and our calling something creation or evolution doesn’t have any more bearing on reality than the word “Blue” has on the particular frequency of electromagnetic radiation that it is supposed to describe.
But let’s say that you do think it’s a relevant issue and it really should have taken God the same amount of time to create man as it did to create water and land or the Sun and the Moon or all of life in the seas. Is winning this argument the very best investment of your short time on Earth? I, for one, don’t think so.
We live in what is undoubtedly the most pivotal era of human history. Ever. Being citizens of one of the world’s foremost superpowers, we are, more so than most of the rest of the world, responsible for the well-being of the next generation. While we spend countless man-hours arguing over what may or may not have happened in the distant past, we forfeit our stake in the future.
Now, to actually address the debate itself, let’s ask ourselves one [not-so-simple] question: “what exactly constitutes ‘creation’?”.
If you are convinced that God is a wizard of sorts who does all of his work on a very human timescale, in a manner that is intentionally very easy for humans to grasp, I’m afraid reading further will be of no use to you. Thank you for your time.
However, if you are simply bothered by the idea that man could arise randomly from a jumble of subatomic particles, then I have some good news for you: you have more in common with the scientists than you might think. Just ask anyone who has worked on creating “randomness”; we haven’t actually come up with a good way to do it. For all we know, “randomness” is simply a human construct. I like to think of it as a blanket term that we invoke when we can’t identify the underlying pattern.
Of course, elucidating the underlying pattern in a massive set of data can be about as simple a proving that something doesn’t exist (though the former is actually an ongoing experiment and you might be interested in checking it out at http://noosphere.princeton.edu/), but at least we can get some satisfaction from knowing that our uneasiness regarding the idea of randomness is something that we all have in common, from the dice roller to the researcher to the churchgoer. And isn’t a better understanding of the unity of God’s children something that He’d like us to have?
March 30th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Two positions presented. One called evolution, the other called creation. Both require an origin. One position generally holds that “nothing” was the origin of everything and the other generally holds that “God” was the origin of everything. Both require faith in the unseen. Faith generally results from evidence whose rabbit trail at some point becomes immeasurable. Finally a choice (at the very least, temporary) has to be made to reconcile a curiosity of purpose.
March 31st, 2010 at 7:55 pm
well put, alex.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:50 am
thanks nathan, I like your post as well.
it seems to me that the whole creation vs evolution issue was blown out of proportion for political reasons and the church has been all too eager to take on the role of the victim (there are so many better ways to be more like Jesus…). most evolutionary biologists that I’ve met have no theological agenda to speak of, though, as you’re well aware, there are some who think that atheism is the only “scientific” stance (not realizing, ironically, that they get pretty religious when it comes down to supporting their claims).
from what I understand, most serious researchers gave up on the creation vs evolution debate a long, long time ago. it’s really only an issue because the corporate media outlets know exactly what gets good ratings these days. unfortunately, antagonism is such a deeply ingrained trait in our culture that, if we weren’t divided over this particular issue, we’d just find another equally meaningless argument to engage in, just as long as it doesn’t require us to confront the chronic under-achievement of our civilization.
April 5th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
I think that it is arrogant to believe that any creature could create the complexities we observe in the universe. And if indeed there is an omnipotent power out there, why would humans be the center of focus? The way I see it, humans are far less evolved than many other species, even bacteria. We’ve not been around all that long. And besides, when did god suddenly start having a heart anyway? Was it a few moments before homo erectus? Or just after the Sumerians?
Could a god be behind it all of this? Perhaps, but it certainly did not happen in any way that existing religious texts describe. If there is a god out there, he/she is no more than a creator, with love for all existence… Even those dirty little molecules that preform acts of mortal sin.
April 5th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
//there are some who think that atheism is the only “scientific” stance (not realizing, ironically, that they get pretty religious when it comes down to supporting their claims).//
I have to ask, what claims do you think atheists make. As far as I know, all they claim is that they don’t know what created the universe and they’re waiting for further evidence. Though, I’ve often been told by theists that admitting not knowing the answer is smug and arrogant.
April 5th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Alex said:
Which is not what evolution via natural selection says, so if that’s what bothers anyone (I am not saying Alex believes what I quoted there by the way), a closer look at what evolution is (basically, in modern biology, it’s the observation that proportions of alleles in a population change over time) and what natural selection is (in essence, the theory that explains that observation, a bit long to explain in a parenthetical aside) might be in order.
April 5th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Jason,
The E.coli experiment with Lenski was excellent evidence for evolution. Not sure where you’re getting your information from.
April 5th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Aaron,
More specifically, faith begins with some type of observation or measurement and, in an attempt to explain the greater whole, skips a few steps and posits that there must be some kind of Creator. This has been done time and time again throughout history by even the extremely scientific-minded, where a genius makes a breakthrough and treads new ground until he hits a wall. Unable to explain any farther, he invokes a Creator in order to explain away the complexity of what faces him. Some years later, another genius breaks through this wall, treading farther until he hits another, etc. Turns out lightning and thunder have nothing to do with Thor at all.
So many things are explainable these days that could only be attributable to a god in the past that I’m not really sure why this would be any different. Evolution only requires faith if you do not (or care not) to understand the mountain of evidence before you.
April 5th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I have to apologize for my confusing use of the f-word..
“More specifically, faith begins with some type of observation or measurement and, in an attempt to explain the greater whole, skips a few steps, with religious faith positing that there must be some kind of Creator.”
April 5th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Evolution is not only true, it is, at every step of the way, governed by local rules of chemistry. This much we know. Take the time to read “The Greatest Show on Earth.” It will lay out, with detail, every single piece of information you need to know about evolution. If you read it, there will be no question about the validity of evolution through natural selection. The only question left for you to answer will be, “Where does god fit in?”
April 5th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
The whole debate seems rather childish to me as either is as debatable as the other. For people who believe in creationism, their only proof for such claim is that the bible states it, when from a personal standpoint, the story of how god created us is much more metaphorical than to be taken literally word for word and there must certainly be more research done as to how the actual process came about. For ones who have such a not only hard belief but seemingly irrefutable proof of evolution, It’s very enticing material but still, if we don’t question our origins, it’s possible we may never learn anything past that might be the truth. In this light, I’m claiming that as logical and indeed as each subject may seem, there still must be much more intense and intimate debate and questioning done past that so we could possibly learn something never before known about ourselves.
April 5th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
I think i am learning more from reading this thread than from most books i have read on the subject. Books just present one view, this is great.
@RYAN, Why do evangelicals put so much weight in the YEC?
@JASON, Do you think what one believes on this issue is ultimately salvific, that is to say, for those who believe in a literal heaven and hell do they find it necessary to believe in a literal 24 hour YEC?
@ALEX, Do you think that this issue is a stumbling block to scientist in terms of their faith?
@Jonathon Swift, if there was a God what would you want him to be like? what kind of world would he have created?
April 5th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Tnere’s nothnig to debate because there is no God to create anything. If there is or was one then why is he such a jack***? He’s invisible, he cannot speak, he has other invisible fairies that cannot speak. Only once in 6,000 years has he had the balls to speak and it was nowhere near a camera or video recorder to make sure, because to God it is important that we have a clear understanding and not be confused about his demands, and even then whatever he said wasn’t written down….because nobody had pen and paper. What a crock of ****.
April 6th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Wow, there are some smart guys on here, this is a underdeveloped area in my personal study. So I will do some reading and allow you smart guys to flesh out the facts. I applaud your zeal and ability to retain the knowledge to articulate your ideas.
As a Believer, I know one thing, God is not afraid of truth, even if we are!
April 6th, 2010 at 9:48 am
I am not sure that there ought to be an either/or here. Gen 1.27 says that God created humans. It is vague. It doesn’t say “how”. Gen 2.7 gives a few more details: God formed man “from the dust” and then did a supernatural act of giving him ‘ruach’ or “breath/spirit” that made him a ‘living being’. Science cannot explain this supernatural act and theology cannot explain what the process of “being formed from dust” looked like. Is it not possible that “being formed from dust” was the evolutionary process?
April 6th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Brian, don’t strain your brain trying to fit the bible to reality. Read a book about evolution (I suggest The Greatest Show On Earth) and teach yourself how reality works. Once you do that, ask yourself if it is even necessary to include the bible or god in your world view.
April 6th, 2010 at 11:29 am
What an EXCELLENT discussion! I’m frankly blown away by the clarity of some of the arguments on this blog.
As one who holds faith, reason, science and scripture in high regard, I’ll throw out a quote from St. Augustine (354 – 430 AD)as food for thought [warning: I ripped the quote from from Wikipedia for all you cite-checkers out there]:
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” – De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, [408]
If I can paraphrase, it appears to me that Augustine was urging Christians to tread softly when we attempt to derive scientific truths from spiritual texts, lest we appear (as Mr. Crackhorns so eloquently put it) like jacka$$es to non-believers.
If you are free this Saturday evening or Sunday morning, and want an opportunity to participate in an in depth discussion of these issues, come to http://www.sflighthouse.com, where I’ll be leading a discussion and giving a talk on this topic. I think there’s going to be free coffee. I hope I’m not so boring that you’ll need it. . . .
April 6th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Philip Gray said:
It could be a misunderstanding but my understanding is that people who admit that they don’t know are generally classified as “agnostics”. I feel like that’s the humble approach because, if the deity you believe in is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, he’ll know when you believe in something simply as a matter of convenience and he’ll definitely be able to do something about it. When people tell me with utmost certainty that their creator thinks/feels/does a certain thing, sometimes I wonder where the “fear of God” went.
I have met many people who simply say “there is no such thing as God and I am sorry that you suffer from that delusion” and these are the people I consider atheists. I think it’s obvious why that’s not a scientific statement. I mean, you’d have a hard time proving that anything doesn’t exist, never mind this very broadly defined being we call “God”. If a statement is not falsifiable, it requires that you have faith because empirical evidence isn’t going to be able to do much for you.
efrique said:
That’s true, and I think my using the term “evolution” might be misleading here.
My definition of “evolution” is probably:
ev·o·lu·tion
–noun
1.
any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution)
I feel that evolution is more than just its biological manifestation, so I really should use a different term, but I haven’t been able to think of a good alternative (do let me know if you’ve got one for me), and “evolution” already has all these thought-provoking implications.
I get the feeling that “evolution”, whatever it is, has been at work since the beginning, evolving stars and planets and life as we know it. I also don’t think that humans are the last stop. We have relied on our technology to compete with other species (be it weapons, domestication of animals, the internal combustion engine, the semiconductor, etc.), so I think that our merging with technology (ever use a GPS to get around?) is just the next rung in the evolutionary ladder. I don’t know that we’re giving our species a fair shake if we limit our understanding to the transfer of genetic material between generations. In fact, a lot of research suggests that studying the distribution of alleles is entirely insufficient; gene expression is what determines much of our biology (and hence our ability to adapt/survive) and a whole lot of that is determined by our environment as well as the genes we’ve inherited (check out “epigenetics” if that interests you).
In any case, thank you for pointing it out. I’ll try to be more careful when using potentially ambiguous words.
@Jeffrey Garner:
Personally, no. I think it’s only a stumbling block if you want it to be, but my opinion probably has a good deal of bias, since it was the study of science that got me interested in God on the “I feel it in my bones” level rather than the “my parents said it’s good for me” level.
Jimmy Crackhorns said:
“I AM A TROLL, ARGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!1″
April 6th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Such good comments….
I just wanted to add that had I had a forum such as this one a few years back, my life may have been a bit easier.
I went off to school with my religion down pat and a manual in hand to fight those demonic evolutionists at school. I knew all the creationist arguments and figured i was on good ground.
Anyone who begins to look at the evidence for evolution (as some have referenced here) will hopefully see that the evidence for evolution just rolls over the creationist arguments. (I have yet to read the Greatest Show on Earth, though from my understanding much of the content is similar to what is in “Why evolution is true” by Jerry Coyne which I highly recommend.).
Naturally for a fundamentalist Christian of sorts, when I realized evolution was true, I felt like one of my legs of support for my faith was ripped right off.
And I struggled for a good year or two trying to reconcile the science with religion, and it was a very lonely fight as I could not find any sympathizers in the religious community. Books were my only friend in this matter (outside of my friends blasting me for my beliefs)
With my experience in mind, I do think the creation/evolution argument is very very important. Not necessarily to be done in a debating sense, but rather just in a knowledge that we live in particular cultures that have very dogmatic stances regarding such matters and do not allow “alternatives” in belief regarding these matters. For instance, my life would have been much easier had I known that being a theistic evolutionist was very common amongst many theologians. Or at the same time, most atheists seem to confuse the fundamentalist position of creationism as the only way to belief, and such discussions as these show that this is far from the case….
Done ranting.
April 6th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Enjoying the discussion. Enough good stuff here I need to digest before I can really chime in.
I think many Christians are comfortable with accepting the idea of evolution within a species, but not an evolutionary process from one species to another.
Also, one of the most problematic cases to support evolution has been the fossil record, and furthermore the lack of proof to connect a single occurrence of when one species has become another. The changes in degree are there (longer beaks, different color stripes, etc), but not in species (dog to cat, etc). In other words, the craze to find a MISSING LINK, many believe, is likely just a futile exercise to fully prove Darwinian Evolution. This does not preclude that any of these are “anti-Science.” Pure science, in fact, is the Scientific Method, not a philosophical argument. In other words, science is the expert witness on the stand, not the entire case itself.
What I see as a fundamental different, in stereotype of those who reject Creation over Evolution, is a “looking to the stuff” for the answers of the “How.”
Science is an instrument of God in that it reveals His glory more fully. It shows His order and that He is rational. We can launch as far out into space, and we get the same rational pattern. We can zoom as far into matter, and especially with the development in microbiology, we are able to see order. The universe in its largest form and smallest form show us order.
Science is at its best when it focuses on the “What” and stays away from the “How.” thus differentiating science from philosophy. This amalgamation of function in the Science community has caused concerns as well.
Finally, the so-called Science vs. Religion debate, as Alex said, it one largely created on political reasons. The reality is that Science explains to us how the “stuff in the box” works (see Darwin’s Black Box), philosophy and religion attempt explanations of the more metaphysical questions of “how the stuff got there,” pointing the questions “outside the box” (of stuff).
April 6th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Like Joel, I would have benefitted greatly from a discussion like this when I was a freshman in college. It was inconceivable to me at the time that one could enjoy a robust faith without forfeitting one’s intellect. I was under the misguided impression that religion and science were mutually exclusive enterprises.
I hope you guys get a chance to swing by San Francisco Lighthouse Church on Saturday evening or Sunday morning to share your thoughts and insights on this topic. It will likely prove to be a lot of fun, and hopefully somewhat useful. The churchs is at 1337 Sutter Street (Van Ness); see http://www.sflighthouse.com/ for times, etc.
April 6th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Andrew,
Thank you for the fantastic, insightful response.
April 6th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Brent,
Alister McGrath wrote an article on the Augustine quote you mentioned here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html
April 6th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
[...] – Creation and Evolution here. [...]
April 6th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Great article. Thanks, Brian. Below is an excerpt from McGrath’s interview with the Christian Evidence Society wherein he succinctly discusses the four major Christian approaches to interpreting Genesis’ description of creation:
“Q: When it comes to ideas about how the world started, many people think there are only two options – evolution or the Bible. Is that the only choice?
A: No. All Christians take the Bible very seriously and will say that it is of the utmost importance to remain faithful to what it is saying. The key question is how to interpret the Bible. Are, for example, the first three chapters in Genesis literal history? Or are they something deeper than that?
There are four main positions within Christianity. Young Earth creationism says the Earth is about 6,000 years old and was made pretty much in the form that we see now. This conclusion, they say, is a natural reading of the Book of Genesis.
Another school of thought – old Earth creationism – while agreeing that God made the Earth and everything in it within a limited time frame, says that there are gaps within the Genesis account. For example, God creates the Universe, then there’s a gap and then he creates something else. In other words, the Universe is extremely old but God made the Earth and us at a much later stage. That, again, is a perfectly legitimate way of interpreting the Book of Genesis.
A more recent development is intelligent design. This is quite similar to old Earth creationism but the talk is not so much about ‘God’ as about an ‘intelligent designer’. The basic argument is that we cannot explain the way the world is by purely naturalist explanations. We have to invoke an intelligent designer to explain what we find. This argues that a purely Darwinian account of the world cannot give a total picture.
The fourth approach is theistic evolution. This sees evolution as the way in which God providentially exercises his creative processes and brings the world into being.
This approach finds a lot of favour among Christian biologists and links in well with some parts of the Book of Genesis, particularly those that talk about the Earth bringing forth things, which seems to imply there’s some kind of ongoing natural process.
Each of these ideas has its strengths and its weaknesses. But underlying each of these approaches is the very firm insistence that the world is God’s creation; it is his world not ours; and it was deliberately brought into being – and so were we.
Q: So somebody can be a Christian and believe in evolution?
A: Yes, they can. Evolution is not, by definition, atheistic. Darwin saw his theory as reconcilable with the Bible. He struggled with his Christian faith towards the end of his life but that was because his daughter had died very young, not because of his ideas on evolution.
Some Christians will be uncomfortable with the idea of believing in evolution, particularly because it raises the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. That’s a very big issue in its own right. All I can say is that, with complete integrity, there are many Christians who see evolution as illuminating the way in which we understand Genesis and as giving us an enhanced vision of how God brought the world and humankind into being. People can make evolution atheistic but it doesn’t have to be.”
For more, go to: http://www.christianevidencesociety.org.uk/article/articles/25/
April 6th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Andrew,
I want to clarify that I am not saying that the Bible describes evolution. I am saying that it is vague enough that one could affirm the message of Genesis (which is not “how did this process occur scientifically”)while affirming evolution. The Bible is not a science textbook. It doesn’t even try to delve into such details.
April 6th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Brent,
I agree. The position that you have set forth here is a better way of setting forth my own. I hope you have a good showing Saturday evening!
April 6th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Brian,
Religion approaches the subject of reality from the wrong direction. You read your Big Book and then look for correlation with the world. The problem with this approach is that you fall victim to the confirmation bias, ignoring everything that doesn’t match the template you’re determined to see through. What you should do is look at reality first, learn about it and see how it works. Dive into chemistry, into biology, into geology, into physics; learn how it all works.
Instead of asking your book for permission to believe a certain way, see for yourself how it actually IS. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. That is to say, believing in creationism doesn’t make it so. Why should you believe first and confirm second?
Put evidence ahead of faith and you’ll find that there is no debate. Evidence points 100% in favor of evolution through natural selection. If there is a god, it does not interfere in any step of the process.
As another endorsement of the book I mentioned earlier, here is a little review I wrote about it: http://www.dontfeedtheanimals.net/2010/04/reading-report-greatest-show-on-earth.html
April 6th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Ryan,
I am not a biologist either. I just read the works of biologists. Yes, it is used as evidence for evolution, but so are peppered moths! I find it quite amazing what Darwinists appeal to for evidence. Calling it “flimsy” is too gracious. They usually appeal to the ability of organisms to experience small changes (microevolution, for which we have evidence) as evidence that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species (macroevolution, for which we have no evidence). But this is an illegitimate extrapolation from the evidence. It assumes, rather than proves, that there is no natural limit to the amount of change a species can undergo. That must be proven. It hasn’t. Indeed, the evidence is pointing in the opposite direction: that there is a natural imit to genetic variability an organism can experience.
As for Lenski’s experiments, I don’t think I am misrepresenting it at all. Not a single new protein has evolved, yet alone a new biological system, yet alone a new species. Instead, genes that make RNA are getting broken, and the mutation rate is accelerating (which results in further corruption of the genome). The only “novel” change witnessed is the ability some E.coli evolved to digest citrate. But several things should be noted about this change:
1. E. coli can normally digest citrate in anaerobic (absence of oxygen) conditions.
2. E. coli already possessed the enzymes necessary to metabolize citrate. They only lacked a way of getting citrate through their membrane in the presence of oxygen.
3. It took 32K generations to produce this tiny change. At this rate of evolutionary improvement, it would take billions of years for complex organisms like mammals to change from one species to another (since our population sizes and reproduction rates are orders of magnitude smaller than bacteria), whereas Darwinism requires that it happen in 10s/100s of 1000s of years. If E. coli could only evolve one major biological improvement in the equivalent of ~500K years of human evolution, why think all other animals have evolved thousands, if not millions of improvements during the same timeframe?
4. Why should it take so long for E. coli to develop this transport mechanism, when they’ve been swimming in citrate for so long?
5. All of the functionally beneficial changes observed in E.coli are the result of degrading the genome, not increasing biological information. But evolution requires that new genetic information be added to the cell, not that it be lost. While sometimes losing information can be beneficial to survival, evolution to higher organisms cannot be achieved by constantly giving up biological information. Thinking it can is like the merchant who lost a little money on each sale, but thought he could make it up on volume! The math doesn’t work. Eventually such a progression will lead to extinction, not advanced evolution.
Lenski has made various reports on his research, so I invite you to read through them and report back if you find any evidence of even a new gene being created through random mutation. I’m pretty confident you won’t find anything. He himself has described the ability to digest citrate as the “most profound change we have seen during the experiment.” And yet hundreds of new genes would be required to produce new biological systems necessary for speciation.
I’ll respond to the rest of your comment in a separate comment.
Jason
April 6th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Andrew:
I share your enthusiasm for science, reason and critical thought. You are right to point out that chemistry, biology, geology and physics are excellent disciplines for learning about the nature of the physical universe.
I would humbly suggest, however, that these disciplines are not particularly useful at addressing equally legitimate existential questions such as:
1) Why does the universe even exist in the first place?
2) Why am I here?
3) Is there a God?
4) What happens after we die?
While science is extraordinarily adept at addressing the nuts and bolts of how the physical universe operates, it would simply be a category error to try and apply the scientific method to the questions above.
As such, it appears that Brian and others on this blog are legitimately trying to reconcile their respect for science with the existential meaning and value they derive from their faith in God and their respect for scripture.
Does that not seem like a valid pursuit?
April 6th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Ryan,
As for malaria’s resistance to Chloroquine, we know what was required to develop such resistance: two simultaneous point mutations. We also know the odds of such a mutation happening: 1 in 100 billion billion. The only reason malaria was able to meet these odds is because they have population sizes so enormous (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) and reproduction rates so fast. By chance alone, one malarial cell will develop the combo mutation in 1 out of a billion people. But complex life cannot accomplish the same feat because our population sizes are so small and our reproduction times so long. That’s why microbiologist Allen Orr writes, “Given realistically low mutation rates, double mutants will be so rare that adaptation is essentially constrained to surveying—and substituting—one-mutational step neighbors. Thus if a double-mutant sequence is favorable but all single amino acid mutants are deleterious, adaptation will generally not proceed.”
Or consider HIV. The HIV virus mutates at a rate 10,000 times that of malaria. It only has 9 genes (vs. thousands in malaria), so every possible point mutation occurs in every infected person 10,000 to 100,000 times per day. Double point mutations like those that made malaria immune to Chloroquine occur in every person every day. In the past several decades, about every possible combination of up to six point mutations has occurred somewhere in the world. HIV has literally run the gamut of all possible mutations. And yet with all of these mutations in a population of 100 billion billion viruses, no new proteins have developed, no new biological systems have developed, and no new species have developed! HIV is still HIV. It still contains the same number of proteins, still performs the same function, and still binds to its host the same way it always has. There have been no significant biochemical changes. If macroevolution cannot happen in HIV, it cannot happen anywhere, because no other organism can reach the population sizes, reproduction rates, and mutation rate of HIV!
As for trusting the consensus, you should do so if they can marshal out good evidence. In the past, they just waived the magic wand of “random mutation + natural selection did it,” without telling us how it did it. They could relax since there was no way to really test the powers of random mutation and natural selection. But all that has changed now. Now we can test it, and have tested it, and it’s clear that it lacks the creative power required by Darwinism. If macroevolution was possible, we would see it occurring in the microbial world, and yet we don’t. Why? Because genetic variability has its limits. And if it has its limits, Darwin’s theory is dead.
Jason
April 6th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Jeff,
To answer your question, no, I do not think what one believes on this issue is ultimately salvific. While I think certain scientific theories and theological views better fit the scientific and Biblical data than others, the most important issue in this debate is whether God is creator or not. I don’t care whether He created quickly or slowly, or through primary or secondary means, but I do care that He created. The real debate is between those who affirm that no creator was necessary, and those who affirm One is necessary; between those who affirm there is no evidence of a creator in nature, and those who affirm there is (and that it is empirically detectable).
Jason
April 6th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Jason,
Bluntly, you are arguing against a straw man. You are building up the evolutionary argument as one thing so it can be easy to take down. The moth argument is what people do use occasionally to demonstrate natural selection, not evolution.
And that to me is very problematic about the creationist/ID community (if I recall you are an ID proponent)….I found that essentially YEC people (though I am hesitant to be so overarching) argue against the evolution of 50 years ago. There were holes in evolution then and there are even holes now, but that does not negate the theory. The holes are being quickly filled in and it’s hard to keep up with.
So creationists go to a some problems of the past and say “this is what evolution is and look how wrong it is.” They don’t seem to bother to read up on the new discoveries on evolution and hide themselves behind a few odd arguments that science has admitted being problematic (moths are not problematic, just taken out of context). Such arguments: a focus on Haeckel’s drawings of embryos, primordial soup, and the archaeopteryx (which is especially troubling considering that I believe 12 have been found now but people are holding onto that one hoax).
Jason, what pro-evolution literature are you reading? While fairly simple, have you read coyne’s or Dawkins’ books that have come out about evolution that will serve as a kind of measuring stick for decades to come as to putting up a very stable argument for evolution that can be understood by the laymen.
April 6th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
@Jason, thank you, for your answer. How do you think evangelicalism and reformed theologians might answer that question?
@Joel, what books do you think present, in layman’s terms, the most solid view of the theory of evolution and natural selection? I am enjoying this discussion its just that, quite candidly and to my own chagrin, I am not well versed in the issues.
@Andrew, based on all the evidence you have culled through, what does it say to you about there being/not being a God? For the sake of argument, lets say i am trying to find my way through understanding life and its meaning and purpose. What would you share with me to help me in this journey?
@Brent, will you share any of your experience that led you to thinking that science and faith were mutually exclusive? I spoke with a guy the other day and he wanted to believe in God, he said, “if there is God and if he, like the Christian’s say, “loves us” then that would resolve a lot of angst in my life. But i just dont know that i can trust in that worldview.” Will you say anything that will help someone work through this existential impasse?
April 6th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
What a great conversation! As a follower of Jesus Christ, I fully embrace the Bible as the Word of God and that it should be taken literally except in those areas where it clearly makes use of symbolism and allegory. My understanding of His Word (as limited as it is) leads me to believe not only that He is the Creator but that He has always been. Therefore, He is certainly “old enough” to have created a trillion-year-old universe. He is also creative enough to engineer a universe from nothing. I believe strongly that I can detect His hand as I gaze at the sun, moon, stars, etc. At the same time, I can understand the path down which some scientists travel as they seek a naturalistic explanation for the origin all things. I’ll just throw out a few questions I have for which I am still curiously seeking a better answer (from the perspective of evolution) and then I’m going to play racquetball in an attempt to shed some weight that has evolved in my life over the past twenty years.
1. When I play racquetball, I shrink a little because I burn energy in terms of caloric units. If the sun is a ball of gas (simplistic explanation, I know) that has been burning energy for billions of years, how large must it have been in its earliest stage? If it were much larger than it is currently, life on earth would be untenable even during early recorded human history.
2. Why are there ocean-dwelling fish fossils on mountaintops? (Not necessarily related to the story of Creation, but the question could relate to the concept of a worldwide flood.)
3. If we follow the grand story of the origin of all things in reverse order, we eventually come to the beginning. The theory of evolution requires some thing with which to start the story (a sliver of a subatomic particle would be helpful to begin). This leaves unanswered the origin of that “thing.” Where did the original particle come from and “where” was it when it all began? If we start with something, we have no true origin. It we start with nothing, perhaps there is an Originator…
Check ya later!
Mark
April 6th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Andrew,
I am not denying evolution or that scientific research has confirmed evolution. Likewise, I am not suggesting that the Genesis narrative describes evolution. I am saying these are two totally different approaches to the same reality.
Let me allow for the possibility that “natural selection” could suffice for what we see. Does the data necessitate that God was not involved? Could I not see the same data and say, “Wow, that is really amazing that God created by this method of natural selection over millions of years?” If not, why not?
I guess my concern is that the metaphysical aspect is dismissed because it is not necessarily “needed”.
April 6th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Joel, Why science would be associated with hoaxes to begin with is quite suspicious – the one which you give as an example is not an isolated case. There are dozens of examples similar to this. So as much as some attempt to be seen as purely “objective,” even in the scientific community there, among some, almost an underlying purpose (why else would a hoax exist). What happened to “follow the evidence wherever it leads?”
@Philip, that’s an interesting take. I never considered any material by Richard Dawkins to be humble, “I don’t know anything” demeanor, while his opponents are smug and arrogant. Richard Dawkins does not believe in God. Unfortunately, he like many atheists (contrast to a Deist) cannot be content with an “I don’t know,” but with an announcement of what they see is a “theistic lunacy.” Hardly humble, self-deprecation going on in Atheist land. Atheism is not where the majority of people are anyway. Most are, truly, in an ‘I’m not sure” or an “I’m not sure, and I don’t care” category.
April 6th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
The discussion has progressed. Some of you are definitely over my head as well.
I see this debate as one not really of Evolution vs. Creation, (though I’m sure there are some that see Creationism as a rival to Evolution), but the real question is rather one of beginnings. Again, it is my opinion that this isn’t even a legitimate question for the scientific community. An “I don’t know” from Science is what we should hear, rather than a “Anyone who believes in God is a fool” which is the rhetoric we’ve heard much recently. Science simply cannot postulate with metaphysical subjects. This is the field of Philosophy, and of course, Theism.
Science should remain consistent in its approach to ideas:
Science, theory, law.
The following quotes seem to have gone beyond that duty. I am providing these quotes for Philip, in response to his prior comments as well.
“Darwin’s theory 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.” Sir Julian Huxley, cited in David Noebel, “Understanding the Times.”
“Today, although many educators play it safe by calling evolutionary ideas ‘theory’ instead of ‘fact,’ there is no reputable biologist who doubts that species, including Homo sapiens, have developed with time, and that they are continually, though slowly, changing.” Isaac Asimov, “The Wellsprings of Life”\\
“Evolution is a fact amply demonstrated by the fossil record and by contemporary molecular biology. Natural selection is a successful theory devised to explain the fact of evolution.” Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden
“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).” Richard Dawkins, as cited in M. Hartwig, Challenging Darwin’s Myths
These quotes reveal an understanding of science far different than one of its pioneers, Johannes Kepler: “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God.”
April 7th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Why does the point of origin seem like it can’t randomly happen?
Just because the chances of it being 1/1 gazillion, still seems like a plausible event happening if we’re gonna add a “higher power” into the mix.
I also wonder if we’re as complex as we truly think we are, and if we hold the capacity to understand our origins. I don’t know if we could understand what it makes to make “life” as much as a monkey could understand quantum physics
@Dawkins Quotes/materials – This guy is just the exact opposite of a religious zealot. They both have good messages, just awful at communicating them
April 7th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
In response to Jeff’s question:
Like many Christians from fundamentalist or evangelical roots, as a young man, I had experienced only a thin sliver of the wide range of Christian thought. I was completely unaware of the rich intellectual history of Christianity, and I maintained an extremely literalist approach to the interpretation of scripture. Also, I lacked a sound basis in reason for my faith, and was a Christian, more-or-less by default.
As a Biblical literalist, I initially assumed, for example, that the earth was $6,000 years old based on my understanding of the book of Genesis. When I took my first geology course and discovered a copious amount of evidence indicating the earth was much older, I simply was not equipped to reconcile that information with my understanding of scripture. Similarly, the information I gleaned from biology courses, archeology courses, anthropology courses, etc., conflicted with my literalist approach to scripture.
The conflict created a sort of cognitive dissonance in my untrained mind. In other words, my religious beliefs were logically inconsistent with the fairly convincing information I was learning in college, causing me a great deal of angst and confusion. In light of the information I was learning in college, I became incapable of maintaining my view of scripture; and I was unaware at the time, of the wide array of alternative views of scriptural interpretation espoused by other varieties of Christians.
Because my faith was 1) not grounded in reason, 2) predicated on a particularly brittle interpretation of scripture, and 3) mainly the result of my surroundings (instead of my own hard-fought conviction), it slowly began to unravel.
Within a few years, I had utterly abandoned my faith in God, Christ, Christianity, and anything that smacked of religious belief. I became an agnostic, and viewed Christians as weak-minded, deluded and foolish. I more-or-less maintained that position for several years. I obtained a degree in Religious Studies and Anthropology from ASU and then studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University.
To make a long story short, around 2004, my father, who was a Pentecostal Pastor, was diagnosed with a terminal illness. His illness and eventual death, caused me to begin seriously re-evaluating the core principles guiding my life. His loss challenged me to re-examine my own beliefs and presumptions. And his loss forced me to re-evaluate the basic existential questions that had haunted me for years: Why am I here? Is there a God? What happens after we die?
My careful exploration of those questions has ultimately led me to a place of reconciliation with God and with my family. And I’ve discovered a sense of wholeness and equanimity that I had never known before. I have also discovered that one need not choose between one’s faith and one’s reason. Rather, faith and reason are complementary gifts that, when exercised judiciously, bring a great deal of joy and peace into one’s life.
That’s the short version. Will tell more this Saturday at San Francisco Lighthouse. http://sflighthouse.com/
April 7th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
@GreenGodzilla I’m not sure it can be fully communicated to us how unlikely a plausibility of random creation is. For starters, nothing-nothing into something! Secondly, the elements required for life are so exact and precise that using time as the “magic wand” seems convenient, but simply impossible… at least at random.
Good point about our capacity to understand our origins.
April 7th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Brent, Can’t wait to hear the “rest of the story.”
April 7th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Brent: The questions you want answered are immaterial in a cosmic sense. Would you be content to know that there is no reason for the universe to exist, let alone for humans to? Would you be content to know that there is no god and that when you die, you just… die? Does it make sense to you that no matter how much you have invested in the answers to these questions, they may very well be complete null answers?
Jason: We have plenty of evidence for macro evolution. Once again, read The Greatest Show on Earth. I was written as a direct response to people like you who claim otherwise.
Jeffrey: From what I know about how life, the universe and everything works, there is no place where a god exerts any interference. My only conceding point would be that if a god did exist, it created all matter and the laws of physics, made everything go “BOOM” and then walked away. Every instance in history that we assumed was the work of god or supernatural has been found, after sufficient inquiry, to be NOT god or anything supernatural. Therefore, there is no reason to even concede that point yet. We’re still learning. Furthermore, our perspective of history, looking from the present into the past, blocks us from acknowledging the many things that happened that had absolutely nothing to do with us being here. We think we’re special, but we’re really not. What I can say is that a sufficient understanding of the Black Swan effect, the Chaos Theory, and embryology (down to the molecular level) can help one come to terms with the reality around them and how it works.
Brian: It is easy to look at the magnificent world, from the micro to the macro and say, “Wow, this is amazing! It must be the work of god!” It takes more courage to actually look at every stage of the process, to follow it up from the molecular composition of a protein all the way to a forest of trees competing for sunlight. When you understand that the only thing that drives every process along the way is chemistry, god’s presence shrinks. Then, when you look at the world, the cosmos, and history, and you realize that our sense of probability is skewed because of our perspective, the “specialness” of being human starts to fade. When you take it all together, you start to see that there is no purpose, no intrinsic reason for any of this at all. Once you reach that point, you’re free. Some people are afraid of that point… they think that without a god-given purpose, the world will burn down. As someone without a god-given purpose, I find life quite fulfilling.
April 7th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Spoken like a true existentialist. Very clearly put, I might add.
I must respect Andrew’s response as not being as brash as an atheist, while still being as skeptical as an Epicureanist.
Andrew, I don’t have the capacity to analyze every chemical process of life, though I realize there are a few that are able. Among those, many have been astounded at the apparent Design and plan of creation (Anthony Flew one of those notables). It’s not just marvel (though at my life, a surfer-dude “Whoa… Cool!” is about fitting), it’s pure amazement at the complexity of life, to where young students are reminded “even though it looks designed, we must remember that it’s not.” From the eye on a peacock feather, to the human eye itself. The exact necessities of life, etc. Outside of the material evidence, we must look into moral properties, and ask how it is we get a moral law. This topc fills volumes of books. In short, it’s quite difficult to suppose a moral law without an objective moral agent.
If there is Design, we have a starting point to discuss and ponder. If this Designer, in fact, related and interacted with His Creation, we can begin to discuss how it is that this Divine One has done so.
I don’t have all the answers to your statements, but I’m definitely enjoying the discussion and await others to chime back in.
April 7th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Andrew:
Thanks for your questions. Candidly, I’m happy to concede the possibility that all I believe in is false. It certainly is possible that life has no meaning whatsoever. It certainly is possible that there is nothing beyond the tangible/physical/material universe. Of course, it’s conceivable that human conceptions of God are merely the result of our over-active imaginations. It’s possible that we are merely afraid of death, and as a result we generate extensive myths full of pleasant and fanciful creatures that will keep us safe in the imaginary after-world. Yes, it’s possible that religion is merely the opiate of the masses and a crutch to the psychologically weak. One would be a fool to not concede these possibilities. However, I just don’t find them to be terribly persuasive. It simply seems unlikely to me that all that exists came into being on its own (or that it always existed). Similarly, it seems unlikely to me that if in fact a deity created the world that the deity would merely walk away from it. Rather, I find it more plausible that the universe is the result of someone’s conscious effort, and that that someone remains interested in it. (Perhaps I’m extrapolating from my own experience — my wife and I made a kid a couple years ago, and I’m still pretty interested in him. I’m assuming if someone made the universe, he’s likely curious about how his creation is doing.)
I suppose I would be remiss to not ask you whether you are equally capable of conceding the possibility that I’m right. If so, I am more than happy to respectfully disagree with you. I genuinely understand where you’re coming from, and held a view similar to yours for roughly ten years. In fact, I may have held a view even more ardent than yours, as you seem to be flirting with the possibility of deism.
P.S. As a former atheist myself, take my advice — don’t concede the possibility of a deity if you want to maintain a strictly naturalistic worldview — it gets really messy. Next thing you know, you might want to start praying to the thing!
You sound like a really bright guy, Andrew, and I’m glad to hear you find life so fulfilling. Good luck as you continue to explore.
April 8th, 2010 at 2:12 am
If Created, its assumed that anything Created bears a semblance, to some extent, of its Designer. This opens up a world of possibilities.
April 8th, 2010 at 7:30 am
Brent: I maintain that the MORE you learn about the universe, the less likely you are to see the work of any god. This is why a vast majority of modern scientists are atheists. Read Carl Sagan’s Demon-Haunted World. For a different approach, read The Black Swan. Changing your perspective will reveal new ideas. When you use words like “unlikely” it tells me that there is still room for you to learn, if you have the will to do so. I do remain capable of conceding that you’re right, but my decisions are based on evidence, not faith. I consider myself a hard atheist, so my concession is merely an appeal to your point of view; I don’t think there was a creator and I won’t think so until there is evidence that says so.
Anyways, last night, it occurred to me that I was having a hard time explaining to people where I come from. So, I wrote this: http://www.dontfeedtheanimals.net/2010/04/taking-it-all-in-evolution-of-atheist.html
April 8th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Andrew:
I took a look at your blog. I mean it when I say I totally get where you’re coming from. I could not help but smile as I read through the general principles you espouse — they are deeply familiar to me — and as I mentioned before, I shared them for many years.
Your philosophy appears to culminate in the following worldview, which I quote from your blog: “If there is no creator, there is no motivation behind our existence. There is no reason for anything to exist beyond the cosmetic justifications we give. We are simply the byproduct of the chemical reactions of the universe. Knowing this, let’s enjoy it while it lasts. For best results: make sure others enjoy it, too.”
While nihilism has its appeal, I personally find it relatively shallow and logically circular. For example, to argue that we are merely the byproduct of the chemical reactions of the universe fails to address the larger issue of how and why those chemicals (and the resulting universe) exist at all.
Our disagreement boils down very simply:
The longer I look at the universe, the more I become convinced that somebody made it.
The longer you look at the universe, the more you become convinced that it came into existence of its own volition.
Both my position and yours require us to make presumptions about the nature of the universe that we cannot unequivocally know at present.
And so, we look at the same evidence and arrive at radically different conclusions. Fortunately, this is a fact issue, meaning that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Obviously I am persuaded that the more seriously one takes this question, and the more one applies oneself to understanding the entire span of human experience, the more likely it is that one will arrive at the conclusion that there’s somebody bigger than us who is responsible for our existence and who genuinely cares for us.
I would only encourage you to apply the same level of scrutiny and intellectual rigor to the precepts that undergird your atheism/nihilism that you apply to other world views. You may be surprised what you find.
April 8th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Hey…for tons of incredible information on ‘theistic evolution’ check out http://www.biologos.org. So incredibly helpful for me when wrestling with these issues.
April 8th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Andrew:
P.S. I agree with much of Sagan’s logic. For example, Sagan argues that one should think skeptically and critically when faced with any new or novel idea.
For example, if someone says, “God created the universe,” we should think critically and skeptically about that assertion to discover whether or not it is a reasonable assertion.
Likewise, if someone says, “No one created the universe; it spontaneously arose from nothing for no reason,” we should examine that assertion critically as well.
Based on my experience, when I see an object (be it a leaf, a child or a locomotive) I deduce that that object derived from an earlier source. The leaf came into existence as a result of a tree — the child came into existence as a result of the procreative act of his parents — the locomotive came into existence as a result of a number of engineers and workmen.
In fact, I’ve never witnessed any piece of matter appear spontaneously on its own (except at magic shows). Thus, I am skeptical of your assertion that the universe (and all of the matter it comprises) came into existence of its own accord.
When I look at the matter that makes up the universe, I deduce, based on reason and experience, that it did not come into existence on its own. I conclude that something or someone preceeded and produced it. That seems a more reasonable proposition to me than your theory that matter simply appeared out of nothing.
In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, but I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that matter can spontaneously come into existence on its own. So, I logically conclude that matter does not spontaneously come into existence on its own. Thus, the notion that all of the matter in the entire universe came into existence on its own requires too much faith for my taste.
April 8th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
@Jeff: Books for the layman: Favorite summary-”Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne.
Favorite Theistic Evolutionist book: “Creation or Evolution: Does it Matter?” by Denis Alexander. Most other theistic evolutionists condescend Christianity, but Alexander is a spirit filled Christian and sympathizes with the view.
@James: There have been hoaxes in the past, and there will continue to be hoaxes regarding false evolutionist evidence. But we cannot throw the science out because of a few crazy ideologues, no more than we can throw Christianity out because there have been a few crazy cultists that bore the name of Christ as their cause.
And there have been plenty of hoaxes from the creationists as well including the Glen Rose footprints where human footprints were found next to dinosaur tracks. Of course this has been refuted, but there are still plenty of websites claiming it as truth despite even Henry Morris (foremost creationist scientist) admitting it was a hoax.
Also someone mentioned the fossils on top of the Rocky mountains pointing to a great flood. Evolutionists rather see this as evidence of convergence of mountains……The land was once an ocean bed (hence ocean fossils) and then two faults converged and mountains develop (this process takes millions and millions of years)…
April 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Brent: When you look at the vastness of the universe, you realize that we are not the main attraction. Life is no more special than the amazing things taking place in far away galaxies. There also may be intelligent life elsewhere (which is quite likely), but we have not encountered it because of the sheer vastness of the world. The fact that we can think about this is also not very special, simply because many of us don’t seem to be able to use our thinking ability without including ourselves.
I really don’t like the “origin” discussion, but you’ve brought it up, so I’ll address it. You are essentially invoking “God of the Gaps.” That is, “We don’t know, so it must be god.” Alas, everything else we didn’t know before has turned out to be not god, so why should this be any different? I have made no claims about how the universe came to be, so you CANNOT say that I assert “that the universe came into existence of its own accord.” You are putting words in my mouth. If you were to ask me instead, I would say that I don’t know yet. You’re asserting that there are only two possible answers to that question, which is even more illogical.
April 8th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Andrew,
I can but help think that your explanation would lead us to be very unsure of our ability to think and do science at all. If I see the complexity of everything and the only cause is chemistry who is to say that my chemistry is not all messed up? Maybe my chemistry makes me believe in this or that or my case God. It seems a bit unstable.
Alvin Plantiga’s lecture on this subject comes to mind as well: http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/289
April 8th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Andrew:
Unless I’m missing something, there are only three options to describe the possible origins of the universe:
(1) it was created by something other than itself;
(2) it came into existence of its own accord; or
(3) it has always existed.
(Can you think of any other options?)
I’m assuming that if you reject number (1) for lack of evidence, then you have encountered some evidence for number (2) or number (3). I would love to see it.
I have yet to encounter any piece of matter that generated its own existence — so the notion that all of the matter in the universe self-generated seems highly unlikely. (I’m glad to hear you are not espousing that theory — it’s goofy, and wouldn’t stand up to even the mildest scientific scrutiny).
Further, all of the scientific evidence that I’m aware of points to the proposition that the universe began at a single instant (around 14 or so billion years ago). In other words, the universe has not always existed. So, number (3) appears as unlikely as number (2).
Now, if you can propose an awesome number (4), I would be more than happy to consider it. Otherwise, number (1) remains most plausible, and seems to comport best with the observable data.
Good stuff.
April 8th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Brian: There is something called the Chaos Theory. It explains how predictable chemical reactions lead to unpredictable results.
Brent: As I have stated, I don’t know enough to make a judgment. And neither do you.
April 8th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I don’t see why even if you go with the “creationism” idea, there’s only one creator?
Why can’t there be a whole race of aliens that just threw a vat of slime on this place and said to themselves “let’s see if anything happens”.
April 8th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
@brent
“so the notion that all of the matter in the universe self-generated seems highly unlikely”
Is god self manifesting? or does god have his own creator?
April 8th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
@greengodzilla:
Good catch, man! I was wondering whether anyone would note that. Yeah, basically my assertion takes us into philosophy 101.
Specifically, Aristotle’s conception of the Unmoved Mover:
“1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can’t happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.”
Of course Aristotle’s insights weren’t totally unique, and they are certainly not definitive, but let’s be honest, the guy was pretty sharp.
April 8th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Andrew:
Good locking horns with you, my man! I appreciate the fact that you are striving so ardently to get to the heart of the matter. Keep it up. If you’re in SF this weekend, come by the SF Lighthouse Church, where we’ll be hammering through some of this stuff. [It will be very low key and people from all philosophical perspectives are welcome.] Alternatively, if you or anyone else on this blog want to continue this conversation, I’m at beroam@yahoo.com. I’ll likely keep checking this blog through the weekend. Yours, B.
April 9th, 2010 at 1:13 am
Joel,
My point for bringing up the hoaxes in science was not to repudiate science, it was to skeptically question motives. It’s obviously clear that the Creationist hoaxes were to help them “prove” Creationism. We could almost accept this from an idealogue, but why is there such a insistence in the scientific community? It causes me to wonder why someone who is only concerned with scientific method and proveable data would care to postulate, unscientifically, a theory. In other words, the MULTIPLE hoaxes and dishonest science (as well as dogmatic, brash, matter-of-fact statements) about unproved things should cause one to ask why.
To your support of evolution. Is it Theistic evolution which you espouse? Do you believe Gen 2 that God created man from the dust of the ground? Do you see this as a fancy metaphor instead and that man evolved from another species? If so, how is it that man was uniquely created in the Image of God?
April 9th, 2010 at 1:14 am
Thoroughly enjoying reading this discussion.
April 9th, 2010 at 3:25 am
I like Aristotle’s point. It seems that it takes it from a linear point of view. What if it’s not linear? and more of a cycle?
Would there still be an infinite chain of causes?
My example of this would be this “immortal jellyfish”
http://imgood.me/2010/04/evolution-vs-creation/#comments
The jellyfish might have “evolved” (hehehe) from something else, or even been “created” as a byproduct of something else also. At which point, it would have had a start, and no “creator/god” in that sense (it would have been a byproduct or mutation).
So replace that now with the current universe as a whole. Does this make sense? if not I can retry phrasing it.
If it were more like a cycle, like the life of the jellyfish, would there still be an infinite # of causes?
April 9th, 2010 at 7:32 am
I just wanted to give a shout to my Godhead and Creation ninja compadres. I love these discussions because they are so exhaustive.
Nonetheless, whatever the final outcome and verdict, my faith in the Almighty and the works of His Hand is strechable.
He is.
April 9th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Brent: If you have an hour, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
If you’re truly curious about the origin of the universe, this will open your eyes.
April 9th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Andrew:
I don’t have an hour, unfortunately. Can you offer me a short coherent description of its basic assertions?
April 9th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
The basic: The universe is flat, allowing for a zero sum of energy and mass. This means that the universe could have come into existence without a creator. If you have 7 min, watch from 33:00 to 40:00, but it leaves out a lot of the context.
I repeat that the more we know, the less we need god to explain.
April 9th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Many scientists say the more we know, the less we we realize we know.
April 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Joel,
My point in bringing forward the information about hoaxes, is not that one side is to be reprimanded and the other is clean-handed.
One is not overly surprised by an idealogue making such a claim (and certainly a claim not made on the basis of science), but science is (and rightly so) given a certain reverence because their domain is only things that are provable through the scientific method, not philosophical musings or positions one way or the other in philosophical playgrounds. Which leads us to wonder WHY the scientific community has had ANY association with such hoaxes? It’s a healthy skepticism of motives.
Piltdown Man, Java Man, Zinjanthropus, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, Taung Child, Lucy, Ramapithecus… and one and one the we could go.
So again, my point was not to “throw away science” at the knowledge of science’s tract record with hoaxes. Rather, it was only to inject some healthy skepticism in a field that we trust because of its claimed objectivism. Furthermore, science, like you and I, is constantly humbled by positions that are never settled for too long before we discover something else. That’s the beauty of science. It’s not dogma, it’s observation!
A Creationist’s footprint is obviously contrived to tamper evidence to support the idea of a Creator God. But what is the motive of the scientist whose only aim is to “follow the evidence wherever it may lead?”
RE the flood. Are you not surprised that evolutionists don’t see the evidence through the lens of scripture? They shouldn’t! It’s not their job. They are finding physical explanations, which they call “convergence.”
April 9th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Oops, a duplicate post — Sorry folks.
April 9th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Luke: That is also true. However, the two statements (yours and the one you meant it to contrast to) are not mutually exclusive.
April 9th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Jason -
Concerning your appeal to Lenski’s experiments; you are aware that the “biologists” that you say you have read on this appear to be the same ones who are now infamous in the creation debate for their “quote mining” and flagrant… uh, “misrepresentations?’
Lenski’s experiment involved 12 nearly identical strains of e.coli which were separated and have been observed for over 50,000 generations now.
“Since the experiment’s inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Prof. Lenski’s responses to to your apparent source (or your source’s source), Andrew Schafly, on this matter is a legend in the Creation/Evolution debate.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair
I’ve read your blog Jason, and was impressed at the time that you were generally a careful thinker. To see you have swallowed the “Lenski Affair” hook, line and sinker is disappointing and I think, atypical of your usual manner.
I think Prof. McGrath’s guidance that is quoted above is most helpful.
April 9th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
I’ll describe two “creation stories” to you, and you guys can guess which ones they are:
Story A
1. Starts with a formless mass, and describes how an all-powerful actor divided that mass and made of it the visible world. Its culmination is the creation of the human community (represented by a man and a woman), in relationship with that all-powerful actor.
2. Aims to provide definitive answers to questions specific to its time and place of origin, using the language and metaphors of its time and place of origin, questions like, “Why are we here?” “Who did we come from?” “Why is our world–the one we’re in right now–the way it is today?” And most importantly, “How should we relate to each other and to God?” (These questions also happen to be ones that many of us are still grappling with.)
3. Is fixed in form, and no longer open for revisions.
Story B
1. Starts with nothing, and describes how that nothing became something via the action of naturally occuring phenomena and impersonal forces, and how that something became the world we inhabit.
2. Hopes to generate an ongoing series of approximately better, but always provisional, answers to questions specific to its time and place of origin, like why the natural world appears to have the properties that our investigations seem to indicate that it has. In other words, a particular community practicing a particular method of inquiry has generated specific questions about apparent features of the natural world, and one corner of that community specializes in generating answers to those specific questions.
3. Is constantly and actively being changed and tweaked.
What kind of person abuses Story A by trying to force it to answer the questions that Story B was designed to answer? I think the answer is, the kind of person who’s ignorant about where Story A came from, and the kinds of questions its authors had in mind, and why they carefully crafted it the way they did.
I find that the more people know about Story A, the more they resist attempts to disfigure it and misappropriate it by trying to turn it into Story B.
And of course, an even further insult (and a more recent development) is when, in the name of defending Story A, people take the life’s work of those who contribute to Story B and actively misrepresent and misappropriate it. Shame on them for bearing false witness.
April 9th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
I’m sitting back enjoying this discussion and learning a bit. Unfortunately, my science background, the majority of it Biblical literalist, very conservative evangelical “christian” school, has left me limited in my ability to really join in this conversation. However, I’ve struggled for years with the views held forth by creationists and the ID crowd, whom, I feel, only add to an us vs. them conflict rather than a meaningful conversation. Sadly, I was always told that to deny the literal nature of Genesis was to deny the existence of God. This lead me to a place where I was somewhat afraid of science, feeling as if I were betraying my faith. Today I see the creation story as a metaphor originally written to simple people for whom a scientific textbook would have not use. Having left the view of Genesis as an historical/literal account, I find a greater value and meaning to the text when I read it as a message of God’s control over the natural world, particularly those things we fear.
April 10th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Jon,
It is not an abuse of story A to say that (1) it uses the language of the Ancient Near East to capture a truth about God, (2) it is not a scientific text, and (3) one can affirm what it is saying in principle while affirming evolution.
It is not an abuse of story B to say (1) it is accurate science but as science has shown us there is always more to reality than we know at the present time, (2) questions of God can be addressed by science but not determined since this takes, in part, the contribution of philosophy and theology.
I think you are drawing a black-and-white either/or here that does not need to exist. There are some great minds who embrace evolution and the authority of the Scriptures. Alister McGrath has a Ph.D. from Oxford in both biology and theology. Alvin Plantiga is a famous philosopher from the University of Notre Dame that argues that theistic evolution makes more sense than naturalism. These are brilliant men.
While you have the right to disagree with them I think you are going too far acting as if this bridge is simply an impossible one to cross and that only idiots try to reconcile these two views of reality.
April 10th, 2010 at 10:07 am
[...] of either (1) misreading the Scriptures or (2) not understanding evolution (e.g. this conversation here despite the work of people like Alister McGrath and Alvin [...]
April 10th, 2010 at 10:44 am
For more on the Bruce Waltke situation: http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/the-evolution-of-bruce-waltke/
April 10th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Someone asked for a more Evangelical/Fundamentalist representation in the discussion. Here’s probably the leading site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
April 10th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Brian,
The bulk of my post was directed at creationists (young-earth or otherwise), who aim to match up the Genesis text with different parts of science’s creation narrative. This is a fool’s errand, and it’s this kind of thing that I think amounts to an abuse of the text borne mainly of ignorance.
The abuses of the ID crowd, which I took a swipe at in the very end of my post, are of a different order. First, though, let’s be clear what I did not say and do not believe about ID proponents: such people are neither uniformly ignorant or uniformly uncredentialed. A number of prominent ID folks have a top-notch academic pedigree, and I wouldn’t characterize any of them as “idiots.”
The problem I have with ID is that its main proponents, and the institution that constitutes its public face (the Discovery Institute) are just flat-out dishonest. They have a track record of agenda-drive, intellectual dishonesty when they engage with biologists, and when they talk to the public and to policymakers they employ a fundamentally dishonest frame in their attemts to hide their true agenda.
We cover the ID wars quite a bit at Ars Technica, and this review of the DI’s attempt at a “textbook” pretty much sums up what’s wrong with the movement’s leading lights:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/09/discovery-textbook-review.ars
The “teach the controversy” frame is pushed by ID proponents not because they’re merely interested in pointing out “problems” and “flaws” with evolution, and they want to make sure that students have “all the facts” and “hear all sides.” That’s just a stance that they take in order to dress up their arguments and materials in secular garb so that they can slip them into the classroom.
And what I’ve said here isn’t just my opinion–they’ve laid out the whole hidden agenda quite clearly in the infamous wedge document, which was leaked onto the web and essentially exposes the dishonesty at the root of what they’re about:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
The point of the “teach the controversy” is to further a moral and theological agenda.
I have no problem with attempts to further a moral and theological agenda in the public square, as long as everyone’s cards are face up. But this business of bait-and-switch, and of dressing theology and moralism in science drag to get it past secular watchdogs and into the classroom, is itself dishonest and immoral.
Obviously not all ID proponents are dishonest abusers of science, like the folks at the DI. But so many of them appear to be, and they don’t think twice about either twisting someone else’s work, or about repeating the misrepresentations of a tendentious source without bothering to do basic fact checing.
I’ll end this post with an infamous quote from Christina Rigth activist Ralph Reed, on his approach to politics and winning elections:
“I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare, I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag.”
This whole “we’re actively work to hide what we are until we’ve got our hooks in you”, or “lying for the Lord” as it’s called, is for some reason endemic to evangelical culture, and the DI’s dishonesty is just another expression of it. This sort of thing is a big reason why people don’t trust Christians. These ID people are, by and large, as dangerous to the Church as they are to modernity.
April 10th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
@Rustin So is only the creation story a metaphor, or the entire book?
Did God really speak to Moses? Did plagues really, truly come upon Egypt? Was the sea really divided before them?
Where does this stop? All the way until we’ve reduced the Bible to something that is comfortable for us? Until there is no supernatural? Until God is no more than a human imagination?
If you believe in the supernatural, and in a Divine Creator, why do we insist on limiting him?
Obviously, this post is an aside to those on here that have a starting point of believing in God.
April 10th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
I thought that this quote was relevant to the discussion.
“Evolution does not require the nonexistance of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistance of God more than they fear God Himself.” [Keith Doyle
April 11th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I want to make one more point about this wedge document, which everyone who’s interested in the creation vs. evolution debate should read.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
The document’s introduction is essentially a standard “utopia, then the subtle entrance of a malignant influence, then a fall into complete and widespread debachery” narrative that will be familiar to anyone who has read Genesis. And of course the more recent, more relevant antecedent to the document’s opening decline-and-fall narrative is heresiological literature. As early as Iranaeus, you get this narrative of an ideal, righteous Christian community that is spoiled by the introduction of false doctrine, which turns peoples’ hearts away from God and which must be corrected by right teaching.
But the point that I want to make about the wedge document’s intro is that it diagnoses the present day’s ills as the result of creeping “materialism” (a modern phenomenon in the authors’ view), and its proposed cure is “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.” But these two claims–that society’s problem is materialism, and that the answer is the complete overthrow of materalism–are profoundly theological claims. Not only that, but these claims actually compete with the Bible’s answer to the question of, “what is wrong with humanity, and how do we fix it?” Or, at least, that’s how it seems to me.
It’s my impression as a Christian that Bible diagnoses humanity as having a pretty serious sin problem, the cure for which is Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice. This sin problem is not culturally specific–it was with us before Darwin and Marx, and will be with us until The End. And addressing it is the work of every Christian, one day and one person at a time.
Ultimately, I just don’t see how anyone can reconcile the Discovery Institute’s program of intellectual transformation as a route to moral transformation, with the plain message of scripture that our hearts and morals are transformed by our relationship with Jesus Christ.
So the Discovery Institute has their own little “Garden, then original sin” narrative, and their little own plan of salvation that’s separate from the one found in the New Testament. And in their effort their person-driven plan of salvation, they engage in some pretty questionable tactics. In short, they sound to me like old-fashioned heretics.
April 12th, 2010 at 10:58 am
More on Waltke/RTS: http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/update-on-waltkerts/
April 13th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
If word defines science (evolution) and faith (creator); is it not pertinent that these stories of faith have passed from one generation to another? Aside from Genesis they are not relevant to the evolution of man; but significant in the meaning and being a man.
And for these stories to be passed through time as they have, to be experienced by those of abundance or little or of no faith; has developed a far greater truth in my perspective of life than any fact producing chemist or alchemist may discover in his attempt to discover the importance of algae or protein or it’s significance to human evolution.
Evolution does not end in the understanding of the beginning. Evolution resides in man and its path has many pavers.
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Did anyone ever address the topic concerning Direct Creation? (Especially my brothers who are Theistic evolutionists)
A fundamental truth theologically from Genesis accounts is the direct creation of man. This set man apart from the animals. God breathed into man, making him a living soul. He formed him with his own hands. He was specifically designed and created in His image.
If one believes in theistic evolution, what do they do with direction creation?
August 13th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Day/Age Creationist. based on the fact the word in Hebrew used in the creation account in Genesis is Yom. meaning Day or Age depending on the context. so in light of the fact there where no 24 hr days in the beginning of creation, the word Yom is most likely Age. which implies an on specified number of years.
I don’t believe in Macro evolution. i believe God made a resilient creation with the ability to adapt to environment. scientific term for this: micro evolution.
recommended book: Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
September 6th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Hi folks,
My name is Steve and I am an atheist. Like it’s a 12 step program, eh. Anyway, I have been having this discussion (argument) with a devout Catholic over the last few days about religion in general and some specifics about the reconciliation of evolution and Genesis. Raised a Catholic myself but having paid little attention to this ongoing debate for years I was actually somewhat surprised to find out that the Catholic Church has actually come up with a workable theory (for lack of a better word) to marry evolution to existing church doctrine. I find that very confusing even accepting the view that God’s days are in fact “God sized” there is so much more to be explained. I’ve tried to wade through some of text surrounding this joining of God and science and to be honest I find it daunting to wrap my head around. I’ve always found paradoxes with the bible and the belief in God as it pertains to mankind anyway and this just further reinforces those paradoxes. My first problem with the bible is if it truly is the word of God albeit written by the hand of man why is it so full of contradiction? So open to interpretation? So fluid as to lend itself to revisement and reinterpretation? It makes no sense that a being deemed omnipotent would author a guide to life that wouldn’t be simple to understand for all the beings whom He supposedly loves. The second thing is if the Catholic Church now accepts evolution as merely an aspect of God’s act of creation did there not have to be a compromise of sorts? That begs the question of who is acting on God’s behalf? I always believed that no man could endeavor to speak for God. Lastly, I do not seek debate or argument (already got that going on elsewhere) and I am not an activist in any atheist movements…I’m actually a loner who merely doesn’t believe but I do want to address the argument people of faith often put forth to attest to the existence of God that goes something like this: If there is no God why does everything seem so symmetrical? Perfect in a sense that we exist here on this planet just the right distance from our energy source and all appears to be put together in such a way that can be no accident. To that I say in an infinite universe with infinite suns and planets etc. does it not make mathematical sense that the neccessary conditions for life to start, grow and flourish would exist on at least some planetsWe just got lucky. The same principle applies to events on earth that are often regarded as miracles. A person who has cancer is suddenly cured for reasons we can’t explain…there are 6 billion of us…there will be unexplained events, doesn’t prove God did it.