John MacArthur on the “lie” of Evolution:
“The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals . . . have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.” (from “The Battle for the Beginning“).
There was a time, ten or twenty years ago, when I would have taken the bait and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. Today I won’t. Not because I am now convinced about a God-guided theory of evolution, but because I just don’t know. I am not confused or disturbed about the issue, nor does it put any of my faith in jeopardy in any way. I just don’t know whether or not God used evolution as a means to create humanity. Neither do I know how long it took to create the earth. I don’t know if Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, symbolically, ideologically, mythologically, or accommodatingly. I simply believe that when it is interpreted rightly, it is true.
But I don’t think that it is here we find the central battle for our faith. I believe that there are more important issues. Much more important issues.
What I do find is that if Christians get sidetracked on these type of things, believing that if this city goes undefended then the Christian empire crumbles, we are in trouble. The “Battle for the Beginning” is not the battle, at least in my book.
But John MacArthur is a man I respect very much. While he is not a scientist, he does seem to be a very wise leader in many respects and he knows the Bible well. This is why I have to pause at what would otherwise seem to me to be an over-the-top statement. He is right that the last two decades have seen many (if not most) evangelical leaders concede to the real possibility of a God-guided use of evolution. It would seem that there is quite a bit of pressure out there to do so. Evolution is quickly becoming the if-you-don’t-accept-it-then-you-are-committing-the-same-mistake-that-the-church-did-in-the-Galileo-incident type of issue. You remember: back when we insisted that the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe and then ended up with egg on our face.
I don’t really see evolution in the same light. There is quite a bit of observable data that shows us the earth is not the center; it is not quite as cut-and-dry with evolution (I think).
Either way, the gauntlet is going to continue to fall and Christians who believe in evolution are going to continually be accused of compromise. Maybe they have compromised; I don’t know. But to me, it only makes a difference when people push for it to make a difference.
What do you think? Has Christianity been compromised?
668 replies to "John MacArthur on the "Lie of Evolution""
Vance,
Let’s narrow my question down to simply the story of Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib. Now if she was simply another highly evolved ape or whatever that God chose to call the first of the human race of the female gender, then why tell the story as if she was taken directly from Adam’s side as a part of him? That is carrying a literary device WAY past using a metaphor like the breath of God. What is that a metaphor of anyway? If she in no way came from Adam, what does the metaphor suggest?? I certainly have no clue. It can’t mean that they became one because that is covered very literally later. It seems to me to be an utterly false statement that conveys an utterly false idea.
Vance here’s the problem I have with what I think you are saying. First we agree that God did “something.” But the approach you seem to suggest is that our interpretation of Scripture must always go back and try to determine what the author intended to say to the readers of his day. In other words we have to always do a kind of textual forensics to determine specifically what it meant to them in their context, since their context was so much different from ours today. While that seems reasonable, it means that across the thousands of years that the Bible would remain as God’s revelation of himself, each generation must set aside their own context and try to research…in some sense recreate…the original context, in order to determine meaning. That’s certainly one approach and one that is followed most often among theological liberals. I don’t like that approach because I don’t think God’s revelation of himself is located in the “events” described even though I believe they happened in a literal sense (in those places where the text makes it clear that it is intended to be taken literally). I believe the revelation is located in the text itself…that the Holy Spirit not only superintended the writing but also the collection, canonization, translation and preservation of the text. Therefore we are not constrained to always dig around to find out what the original audience was like and how they thought, even though all of that is interesting and worthy of study. Instead the meaning is resident specifically in the inspired text itself. That leaves us with a text that says God “breathed” with no explanation of the physiological process. Therefore we don’t know what the physiological process was and will probably never know until Christ explains it all to us in Heaven. However, it seems clear to me that the text presupposes a physical act of some kind with a physical human being who as a result became qualitatively and intrinsically different from all of the rest of creation. That man later rebelled in some way and brought sin into the world and this began the train of physical history that culminated in Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection…physical, actual events recorded in a text that was prepared for us as a witness go God’s character, purpose, and plan until Christ returns. To me that means that the old earth/new earth argument is wasted “breath”…no pun intended. The text doesn’t say how this worked so any explanation we can devise is pure speculation. We also don’t know how long seven days were. We don’t know how long it was between the formation of the atmosphere and the collection of the waters or how long between the creation of the beasts and God’s breathing of his spirit into man. So these are not subjects worthy of speculation. But the text is clear, at least to me, that something physical happened to a physical human being with persistent physical consequences.
To play the devil’s advocate:
1. Methodological Naturalism serves as the backbone of the argument for Darwinism.
2. If methodological naturalism is true, then we should interpret all evidence through a natural lens: the only theories that should be considered are the ones that involve mechanistic natural laws.
3. Thus, if a claim to the miraculous is made, instead of believing the claim, we should come up with explanations that are in line with naturalism no matter how ‘unlikely’ they should be. To believe contrary is to commit the god-of-the-gaps fallacy (a.k.a. “goddidit”).
4. The Resurrection of Christ is a miraculous claim.
5. Because it is a miraculous claim, we should not accept the miraculous claim but instead accept only those theories that give a naturalistic explanation.
6. Therefore, Christ didn’t rise from the dead.
The reason why Dawkins believes in Darwinism is the same reason why he denies the Resurrection of Christ.
In fact, methodological naturalism is being used by the neo-atheist crowd as the mainstay argument against the Resurrection of Christ. There’s good precedent for this since it has been the greatest argument against all miraculous claims since the late 17th century.
I agree, Charles. God says that all Scripture was given for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness, etc. If we always have to be ANE experts to understand what God actually intended for us to know as He hid His real meaning behind literary devices that could only possibly be understood by those living at that time, a lot of the world is not going to have a clue what the Bible is saying.
@48 (Charles)
You said
But the approach you seem to suggest is that our interpretation of Scripture must always go back and try to determine what the author intended to say to the readers of his day.
Yes, you have the correct understanding, and yes, that is exactly what we should do.
but no, it is not a “liberal theology” viewpoint at all. I would call that Biblical Theology – the Bible means what the Bible meant.
Yeah, the poll is interesting, but I hardly think that people who visit this blog have changed too much from a couple of months ago. I am sure that the longer I leave it up the more it will begin to reflect the older one.
Saint and Sinner,
That is a good point about methodological naturalism. But wouldn’t the resurrection itself mirror the creation event itself that methodological naturalism is not able to explain?
I am not sure, I am just thinking that through.
Saint and Sinner,
Methodological naturalism has actually served us quite well over the centuries. You have accepted its findings in countless ways, and the result is that you and I have both rejected many superstitions that dominated mankind in ages past. It has led us to reject astrology, geocentricity, gods of the weather, etc. To the degree that methodological naturalism continues to enlighten us about reality, I whole-heartedly embrace it. (You do too, if you will pause to consider it.)
But my acceptance of this epistemological approach does not imply that it is the only source of truth. I do not limit my view of reality to that which can be empirically verified. This is where your logic breaks down.
Tell me, what is the harm of finding natural explanations for phenomena if they exist? If you tell me that some snake handler or poison drinker survives their religious rites through supernatural means, and I am able to prove otherwise through methodological naturalism, have I done a disservice?
I believe in natural evolution. (And methodological naturalism is showing us more and more everyday about how it happened!) I believe in the supernatural resurrection of Jesus. (And nothing in methodological naturalism can show me anything about that historical event either pro or con.)
I would nuance what dac said a little bit. While an understanding of the original author’s intent (which is an approach that even conservative theologians like Patton insist upon), I think it is simply a willingness to accept that it is ancient text and that our modern sensibilities and preferences need to be held VERY lightly. Even for those who do not know how they would have understood, it is enough for us to realize that this is 3000 years later and we should be open-minded about how to read ancient documents.
Yes, God wrote the texts for all of us to find relevant today and in every age. And what is the common denominator message that we can all understand? That God created, that He did so with purpose and a plan and that God chose to do *something* to set humans apart and desires to have a personal relationship with us, etc.
Once again, the geocentrism analogy is relevant. God allowed Scripture to be written in a way that millions of Christians for a VERY long time presumed that it was describing a fixed earth around which the sun and stars revolved, and that this held important theological impacts. When confronted with physical evidence to the contrary, even folks like Luther and Calvin joined in the chorus which insisted that this was obviously wrong since the PLAIN language of the text said otherwise and that if the new science was not true, Scripture would be proven false.
How does this jive with the concept that Scripture is written so that every generation throughout human history will be able to just read it plainly and get it right? I think we always need to remain humble and open minded about such things, especially when the evidence from God’s Creation itself starts piling up around us that we might have it wrong.
re cherylu’s comments on theistic evolution
There are several aspects to evolution, not all of which have to be subscribed to by a theistic evolutionist. Furthermore, it is open to a theistic evolutionist to believe in special creation just for humankind. The fact that evolution is multifaceted and not a single coherent theory, and that fact that a theistic evolutionist is not required to accept all of it, means that MacArthur’s statement casts too wide a net and does not even address the matters at issue.
regards,
#John
John 1453, I don’t know of anyone who calls themselves a TE/EC and holds out for special fiat creation of humans apart from common ancestry. The reason for this is the exceedingly abundant and clear evidence for human evolution, especially from modern comparative genomics. I linked previously to a lecture I gave earlier this year on this issue – it’s up in comment 41.
Even honest YECs admit that the evidence for human evolution is strong – for example Todd Wood of Bryan College.
If we always have to be ANE experts to understand what God actually intended for us to know as He hid His real meaning behind literary devices that could only possibly be understood by those living at that time, a lot of the world is not going to have a clue what the Bible is saying.
God did not inspire Scripture in a universally understood language; instead, Bible translation into a single language sometimes requires decades of work. (Imagine how much more quickly the gospel could have been spread had God not smote Babel with babble!) Similarly, the Bible was not written in such a way that all cultures should be able to understand its unique theological ideas.
God forbid that we have to work to understand documents that are thousands of years old and produced by communities living in another culture, speaking another language, and thinking in paradigms that are utterly foreign to us. Cheryl, it sounds as if you think that the Bible must be utterly perspicious instead, which, if you stop to think about it, is perspicious in some areas (those which we possess in common with ancient cultures) and not perspicious in others, the “translation” of which require the expertise of others for us to understand. Don’t fear reliance on those whom this kind of work is their passion.
#John,
“Furthermore, it is open to a theistic evolutionist to believe in special creation just for humankind.”
That is true, however, the folks commenting here don’t seem to believe that. At least if they do they certainly have not made it clear. Hence the way the conversation has gone.
CMP said:
“But wouldn’t the resurrection itself mirror the creation event itself that methodological naturalism is not able to explain?”
Me:
Yes, that is my point. If you accept the Resurrection on the basis that material laws can’t explain it, then you have gone against MN. If you do so, then you also would have no reason to believe in Darwinism since MN is the mainstay argument used by scientists for Darwinism.
An alternative to MN has been proposed. Instead of science being the study of natural causes, it should be that science is the study of *ordered* causes. This would allow for not only natural causes but also causes made by an intelligent agent.
Charles and Cherylu,
“I agree, Charles. God says that all Scripture was given for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness, etc. If we always have to be ANE experts to understand what God actually intended for us to know as He hid His real meaning behind literary devices that could only possibly be understood by those living at that time, a lot of the world is not going to have a clue what the Bible is saying.”
A lot of the world doesn’t know what the Bible is saying. At least in its original languages. That fact, coupled with ya’ll’s line of reasoning, leads to some interesting questions:
Why did God inspire the Old Testament scriptures in Hebrew? Can you read Hebrew? Do you know anyone who isn’t a Jew or isn’t a trained leader in the church who can read Hebrew? How many people in the world do you think can read Hebrew? What about across time? Over the last three thousand years how many people do you think knew Hebrew?
You question the presence of contextual literary devices but overlook the fact that God used a language for his holy Word that most people in the world will never be able to read. Thousands of scholars over thousands of years had to spend thousands of hours studying languages just so you could have a Bible you can understand.
You may not think you need ANE experts to understand the fine points of Genesis, but I doubt you would show as much skepticism towards the scholars who translated it into a language you can easily understand.
Since this is true, why do you find it so hard to believe that God inspired things in Genesis that would be obvious to the original audience, but not so much to you? It’s like straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel!
The Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew. This should be enough to show that it’s a product of its time and place. This language is completely foreign to most of us. Thus it should not be hard to imagine that those whom it was originally written to used literary conventions that may also be foreign to our modern, Western, Post-Enlightened, English opinions about what constitutes “true” writings.
Not understanding this reveals a certain kind of cultural arrogance that uses our own familiar conventions as the Ultimate Standard by which we judge things of no little importance….like God’s Word.
Maybe, just maybe, people thought in different frameworks than we do today. And maybe God used those people’s frameworks instead of ours to convey his Truth to them.
Scandalous, I know, but God has a way of being that way at times!
Cliff said:
“Methodological naturalism has actually served us quite well over the centuries. You have accepted its findings in countless ways, and the result is that you and I have both rejected many superstitions that dominated mankind in ages past. It has led us to reject astrology, geocentricity, gods of the weather, etc. To the degree that methodological naturalism continues to enlighten us about reality, I whole-heartedly embrace it. (You do too, if you will pause to consider it.)”
Me:
No, sir, that is simply false.
Science being the study of ***ordered*** causes has served us well in the past. Arbitrarily limiting science to mechanistic natural laws eliminates actual inferences to intelligence (i.e. ascribing causes to sentient agents) that we make every day.
Secondly, your description of what people believed in the past is for the most part inaccurate. It resembles the propaganda put out by atheists since the 19th century and has been debunked by many a historian.
Theologians since the beginning of Christianity have always distinguished between ordinary providence and miracles.
Even the more astute pagans of the past would admit that most things happen by natural causes. See John Oswalt’s The Bible Among the Myths.
Cliff said:
“Tell me, what is the harm of finding natural explanations for phenomena if they exist?”
Me:
There’s nothing wrong with that IF that is the *most plausible* explanation.
However, the case against the power of the combination of random mutation and natural selection has now grown to a crescendo pitch, and Darwinists are waving around MN as if it were a diplomatic immunity badge held up by criminal diplomats to get out of any situation where they might be prosecuted.
Neo-Darwinism is not the most plausible explanation for both the origin and diversity of life. An inference to special design is.
Cliff said:
“I believe in the supernatural resurrection of Jesus. (And nothing in methodological naturalism can show me anything about that historical event either pro or con.)”
Me:
Then the atheist will simply point out that you are being inconsistent and say, “God-of-the-gaps,” or more likely, “Goddidit!”
This can be a very contraversial issue. I am not as passionate about it as I once was, though my convictions have actually increased.
I am a student in the life sciences at a public land-grant institution of higher learning. In all the biology, microbiology, and molecularbiology classes that I have taken, the support for evolution has always seemed weak. This is especially true in lite of “true science” and the scientific method.
Has the Church compromised? I’ll list some verses and you decide.
Hebrews 11:3
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Wait? What is seen did not come from what was visible?
Evolution is the development of “new” living creatures from older inferior ones through a slow subtle process of adaptation and mutation.
1 Cor. 15:21-23
21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. 22 Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. 23 But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.
Wait? Death came because of Adam?! Then how could God use evolution that requries death and destruction of an “inferior” life to allow a superior one to arise? If God used evolution, then cow could he have finished creating and saying it was “good” if it in fact was not and need to evolve to a higher life form?
There are a couple more, but I’m drawing a blank at the moment…
Saint, got me thinking!
I have traditionally been one who loosely advocates many of the reasons why methodological naturalism is productive and helpful. However, what if quantum mechanics eventually gives us a “naturalistic” interpretation of the resurrection of Christ? I guess, the next question would be “How plausible is the explanation compared to the traditional Christian explanation that God raised him?”
Would we be obligated to go in the direction of this method, even when it challenges our most fundamental belief? I suppose we would.
However, the possibility that there may someday be a “better” explanation, does not alleviate us of following the evidence as it exists today.
I don’t ever think that there could be a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection any more than I do of the first act of creation.
Adam,
“In all the biology, microbiology, and molecular biology classes that I have taken, the support for evolution has always seemed weak. This is especially true in lite of “true science” and the scientific method.”
This has been my experience as well. I have read the best that both sides have to offer. In the end, I don’t really know why so many evangelicals are advocating God guided evolution. I just don’t see it. There are too many elephants in the room for such passionate acceptance.
However, to repeat my original post: I don’t really know.
Saint, you are cracking me up!
“Darwinists are waving around MN as if it were a diplomatic immunity badge held up by criminal diplomats to get out of any situation where they might be prosecuted.”
Don’t know if that is true, but very interesting. You are making me think more about this today than I have in a long, long time. Thanks!
I still think we all need to answer a fundamental question as to whether or not God is deceiving us all???
Here’s what I mean by this. Even the most hardened YEC advocates will admit that the Earth has the appearance of great age. Many will even admit that there is significant evidence of evolution. So is God deceiving us? Specifically lets take the case of Human Chromosome #2 discussed near the beginning of the discussion. Having no knowledge ahead of time scientists predicted, based on evolutionary biology, that humans would have a chromosome that was a fusion of two chromosomes possessed by the great apes. After sequencing the entire human genome they then went a looked to see if this was the case and BAM!!! it was. There are literally dozens of examples of things like this where evolutionary science has made incredibly accurate predictions about the genetic composition of various species based on common descent.
So here are the two options
1. God is deceiving us. He created the world with the appearance of age and creatures with genetics that can only be described by evolution or a creator INTENTIONALLY trying to deceive his creations into thinking evolution occurred
2. Our interpretation of Genesis is wrong and we must adjust our understanding and theology accordingly. As numerous articles have pointed out evolution creates some difficulties for doctrines like original sin, but as other articles explain they can certainly be overcome without even requiring major changes to our base theology.
Saint & Sinner,
“However, the case against the power of the combination of random mutation and natural selection has now grown to a crescendo pitch, and Darwinists are waving around MN as if it were a diplomatic immunity badge held up by criminal diplomats to get out of any situation where they might be prosecuted.
Neo-Darwinism is not the most plausible explanation for both the origin and diversity of life. An inference to special design is.”
Making the blanket statement that “Goddidit” doesn’t really tell us much. Did he do it all the way, or just help it along when it got stuck? Did he do it through fiat creation, or simply by using the laws of nature he put in place to get to where he wants things to be?
You’ve basically said that you know who did it all. And with that I have no disagreement with you at all.
But I’m more curious how this occurred. Saying Goddidit doesn’t answer that kind of question, and since you seem happy to jettison methodological naturalism, I don’t know if you’ll get very far in the “how” side of things anyway.
But, how did God do it and why do you think that?
Dennis Venema,
I’m glad to see you reading and posting here. I really enjoyed your lectures on evolutionary biology over at Gordon Glover’s blog. Very informative, and I thought the different viewpoints were represented fairly by you. I look forward to hearing what you can bring to the discussion here!
CMP, I’m curious to hear what you consider “the best from both sides” with respect to evolutionary biology or evolutionary creationism. What have you read on the subject?
The evidence for evolution is very strong. There is no other way to put it, frankly. Why not have a look at that lecture I posted earlier? Then you’ll see what I mean.
Michael (Patton),
I have read the best that both sides have to offer. In the end, I don’t really know why so many evangelicals are advocating God guided evolution.
Please don’t think I’m calling you out with the following question:
What have you read from the secular side of things regarding evolution? If it’s just Francis Collins, I’m afraid his book’s a little on the “lite” side of things.
Here are some “heavier” reading suggestions for you, some Christian, some secular. Although the secular authors are typically atheists, it shouldn’t affect your evaluation of the scientific evidence for evolution that they present. Just ignore their occasional digs against the existence of a Creator and you’ll be just fine. 😉
Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True
Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth
Neil Shubin, Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
Daniel J. Fairbanks, Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA
These books really dig into the science of evolutionary theory and are written at the layman’s level, with the exception of Fairbanks’ book. (Fairbanks, BTW, is Mormon, but it doesn’t show.) Relics of Eden is, in its first several chapters, quite technical and it took me two reads through to grasp the info. Once I did, however, BAM!
Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
Kenneth R. Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul (the sequel to Finding)
Miller is a devout Catholic, and both of these books are outstanding. The first combines both a look at the biological/geological evidence and bridges the gap between science and faith, and the second digs into why the Intelligent Design theory isn’t science.
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the comment. I’m glad you found those lectures helpful. I don’t know how much I can contribute here, but I read P&P from time to time, and of course a thread on evolution & Christian faith is bound to get my attention.
Most of what I would say is already in those lectures, as well as the one I linked to in comment 41.
Gordon Glover’s series on Science & Christian Education is also an excellent resource.
CMP,
In regard to your comment #68. You spoke of the remote possibility of a naturalistic explanation for Jesus’ resurrection being found by science some time in the future. Then you made this comment: “Would we be obligated to go in the direction of this method, even when it challenges our most fundamental belief? I suppose we would.”
The Bible is full of testimony that God raised up Jesus. What would such a naturalistic explanation do to your faith and your trust in the Bible? And would you actually go with what science said and not what the Blible says in such an instance?
I am asking this because of the very question I asked earlier: How do we know when the Bible is teaching actual fact and when it is only using metaphorical language? Where do we draw the line?
CMP,
I seem to recall that some theologians of the time were angry at Isaac Newton when he used gravity to help explain the motions of the planets. Seems they thought since a phenomena could be explained or reliably described, it somehow took glory away from God, or something like that.
This isn’t a problem for me or most Christians I know simply because our God is a pretty big God. He moves the planets by gravity, a law he placed in motion in the first place. Pretty simple, right?
Regarding quantum physics or mechanics and Christ’s resurrection, so what if someday quantum mechanics can describe or explain it. Still doesn’t necessarily mean God didn’t have his hand in it all. It could just be that God built into his creation a set of tools that allows him to do miracles. I don’t see any theological reasons why God can’t manipulate quantum particles by means of quantum mechanics (which if I understand correctly, appear to us as causeless) and produce a miraculous result that is impossible with conventional physics. Might even be impossible with quantum mechanics without the extra “God-jolt” to cycle it up a bit.
The point is I just don’t see science ever completely pushing God out of the equation. There will always be room for the creator to act upon his creation.
Science will just never be bigger than my God. It may force me to think a little harder, but that’s to be expected when I’m thinking about God!
It is absolutely imperative to distinguish between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
All MN does is a study of the purely natural and is the best method of discovering natural explanations for seemingly natural events. It makes no statement whatsoever about whether every event IS natural or whether there is ONLY the natural.
Philosophical naturalism is where the problem lies: the belief that only the natural exists.
Science is, and should be, merely the search for natural explanations for events. Science is not the arbiter of all truth, it is a tool to observe the natural and explain the natural as best it can. It is not equipped to delve into anything supernatural and should not be asked to consider potential supernatural causes.
Now, this means that when a supernatural event takes place, science can not say anything about it. It could never confirm or deny. MN does not say that Christ could not have been raised from the dead. It can only say that, in the natural course of events, science’s best understanding of how things work is that this is not possible *in the natural*. Period. Philosophical naturalism goes further and says that it is impossible BECAUSE it is not possible naturally.
What we need to do is leave science to the job of providing the best natural explanations it can regarding how the world works, and methodological naturalism is the best means of doing that. Really, it is the only reliable means of doing that.
Then, in our search for TRUTH, we can take what science has to say, the best naturalistic explanation, but not be bound to it when there is sufficient evidence to believe that something supernatural happened.
To require that science somehow transcend its pedestrian task of studying the natural and take into consideration ALL potential options is to make science the arbiter of all truth rather than just a mere tool for discovering how God’s natural world works when He is NOT doing something outside of the natural. And, on top of that, science simply wouldn’t work if you did that.
Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, and Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, have to be among the two most unimpressive books on evolution going. There are better books. In particular, Coyne couldn’t think his way out of an intellectual wet paper bag.
But, before being taken in by the ideological indoctrination pseudoscience masquerading as truth, read the far more wittily written: The Deniable Darwin, by David Berlinski.
regards,
#John
Dennis, I appreciate your coming here, as a scientist but many scientists disagree with your interpretation of the evidence. Judging by that video you appear to regard “junk DNA” as evidence for common ancestral link between humans and primates. However, as we learn more about things such as pseudogenes we find that many of them do not match Darwinism’s predictions about them;
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/10/stephen-matheson-taking-trash-about.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/05/evolutions-circular-reasoning-and.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-journalists-need-to-know-about.html
Someone tried to pull this pseudogene argument on Greg Koukl the other day, regarding vitamin C, and he pointed out that Stephen Meyer had addressed much of this during his conversation on the show a few weaks earlier. Meyer explained that we are now learning that DNA is not destinate, and there is a lot more to what is going on than just looking at genomes would tell us. So pointing out similarities between humans and chimps is not the ‘compelling’ evidence it was once claimed to be. There is much, much more going on.
Even if we were to somehow overcome these problems and accept common relationships between humans and animals, there are still the deep problems as to how the Darwinian mechanisms are capable of producing all the life forms we see. We are supposed to believe that genetic mutations coupled with some sort of sifting process was capable of forming all the body plans and diversity we observe. Yet the evidence for this is almost nil, mutations that lead to new morphological features and structures are nowhere to be seen. All we observe is variations in existing structures; longer beaks, different colour hair, etc. Even examples that are cited as ‘beneficial’ are usually bacterial resistance which leads to a loss of genetic information, and certainly not changes that could turn molecules into men – no matter how much time is available.
As esteemed Cornell geneticst, inventor of the gene gun, and former evolutionist John Sanford explains in Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, it is not just the lack of beneficial mutations that is the important matter, it is the nearly neutral mutations that evolution is to ‘ ‘see’ and so unable to select against and which would acccumulate and lead to complete break down in the genetic code within relatively few generations. The genome shows clear sign of deterioration, as the 2nd law states, and ‘devolution’, but no improvement as Darwinism requires.
Greg,
I guess what you say sounds reasonable, but I do have some trouble with this: “There will always be room for the creator to act upon his creation.”
I not sure that it is “room” that the creator is opting for, but necessity.
Saint and Sinner,
Re. Methodological Naturalism. Good responses.
Methodological naturalism is a term that is used in a variety of ways, one of which is roughly the equivalent of the western scientific method. I was using the term in that way.
I do not claim that all of mankind accepted flat-earth, or geocentrism, or other superstitions. Yes, I am aware of the falsities perpetrated by the New Athiests. But it remains that the history of science has debunked many gaps in our knowledge which were attributed to “the gods” by many ancients, and surely you know this.
You write, “There’s nothing wrong with that IF that is the *most plausible* explanation.”
How do we determine that? The more we learn about DNA, the more plausible Darwinism becomes. But I will agree with you that it still seems unlikely on some levels. But how do we know unless we exhaust the possibilities of natural explanations?
I do agree with you that secularists are often arrogant in their assertions that the material world is all there is, and MN is the only way to understand it.
You write, “Neo-Darwinism is not the most plausible explanation for both the origin and diversity of life.”
You must surely know that Darwinism, neo or otherwise, does not propose any explanation for the origin of life. And even ID people like Behe acknowledge that evolution is the best explanation for life’s diversity. Evolution might well have been “front-loaded” (ala Denton and Mike Gene). It’s course may have been predictable by a Creator (ala Simon Conway-Morris). God may have superintended the process. But science is limited it what it can say about those possibilities. And science has not alternative but to search for natural causes until they have exhausted all possibilities. It is in this regard that the naturalistic approach of science serves us so well.
But of course I agree with you. It may not find all the answers, because it can tell us nothing of divine providence.
You write, “ Then the atheist will simply point out that you are being inconsistent and say, ‘God-of-the-gaps’…”
Yes, you are correct. This is exactly how the typical atheist responds. But I didn’t write what I did to an atheist, but to you. So, more to the point, do you see some inconsistency in what I wrote about my belief both in natural evolution and the resurrection of Christ?
As a marine ecologist, I use evolutionary theory to try to figure out what’s happening in our oceans right now. I really feel that my calling in life is towards stewardship of creation, and conservation, and evolution science is the best tool to help me acheive that. Although I don’t think I know exactly how the universe came to be, I beleive that Genesis is 100% true, just in a way we don’t understand yet. As a scientist, I know that the current state of knowledge is not set in stone, and is constantly in revision. I don’t think that it’s the absolute truth, but it’s the best theory we can come up with with the informaiton we have.
Working in a field that’s dominated by atheists, I really have a heart for my colleagues. I do my best to show Christ’s love. That’s the important part. Statements like MacArthur’s do nothing but re-enforce non-christians beleif that to seek Jesus, they must give up intellectual integrity. I have a few friends who are YEC, or IDers, and while I respect their opinions, and think that if they really do see a conflict between the science and the scriptures, then they’ve taken the right stance for them. But, I do not approve of “evangelical creationism.” Taking your own sense of conflict between science and faith, and casting it onto non-christians, who -not yet knowing Jesus- do hold science with higher regard, causes them to turn away from faith.
I do see that evolution is a rational escape for the existance of the universe without a creator. But that should be a challenge to Christians to win people over to Christ through love, and spiritual truth. Denying that there is another option for understanding the world can only backfire to those non-beleivers who hold an evolutionary viewpoint.
Mike, I have a small library of only secular scholars on the issue of evolution as well as one that are Christians. And then I have an even bigger library YEC!! Like I said earlier, it is simply too difficult, and too many holes in every theory, philosophical (which most people don’t add into their presumptive equation, theological (enormous), and scientific (you know what I mean) that should give us all a good dose of humility in this area.
Re post 71 and similar posts about the great predictions of evolution, “There are literally dozens of examples of things like this where evolutionary science has made incredibly accurate predictions about the genetic composition of various species based on common descent.”
Yeah, like predictions that there would be vestigial and useless organs like the appendix. Except that it isn’t and there aren’t.
Or that there would be lots of junk DNA, except that there isn’t.
Or that its RNA that’s junk, except now it isn’t.
Or that there would be lots of gradual transitional fossils, except there aren’t any.
Or that ontogeny would recapitulate philogeny, except it doesn’t.
Or that bacteria is an evolutionary step, except that they aren’t and bacteria don’t evolve.
Or that we could construct a tree of life representing common descent, except that now it’s admitted that we can’t.
Or that we descended from apes, except now it’s thought that apes descended from us.
etc., etc. The theory of evolution is a pretty useless predictor, but it’s a great source of post hoc “just so” stories and fables. The world has a greater chance of ending according to the Mayan calendar than evolution does of being true.
Oh yeah, and what about that fused chromosome? Well, just a touch of logical thought (not too much though, I wouldn’t want any brain cells to burst) would serve to reveal that it proves nothing, nada, zero about ancestry. It is entirely feasible, and perfectly explanatory, that ancient humans did not have a fused chromosome, and that a mutation in the humans fused it, and that the fused chromosome spread among all humans. No need for an ape at all. And besides, with Ardi now, apes come from humans, so the fused chromosome can’t be demonstrative of descent from apes. I expect another “just so” story to pop up any day now.
regards,
#John
Dennis, I am sure that it is strong, in your opinion and from the commitments that your approach demands. I will have to decline at this point being able to see what you have posted. Not because I don’t think it is valuable, but because, as you must understand, I have piles of books and links to read and that have been read that make the same claims. In the end, I normally become more suspenseful in my judgment!!
BTW: I really appreciate that no one has damned another to hell for their views here or assigned them to the pit of academic irrelevance.
No ad homs here! Keep it up.
(Especially since it will not be able to monitor this post so closely from here on)
Greg said:
“But I’m more curious how this occurred. Saying Goddidit doesn’t answer that kind of question, and since you seem happy to jettison methodological naturalism, I don’t know if you’ll get very far in the “how” side of things anyway.”
Me:
Please read my remark more carefully. I was actually giving the atheist response to the claim that He [i.e. God] did it at all!
Taking it to its logical conclusion, the atheist, when confronted with the claim of the Resurrection, will simply use methodological naturalism to dismiss the Resurrection as a superstitious fable altogether.
In other words, they will accuse the Christian that is making that claim of using God-of-the-gaps reasoning.
However, I reject MN as being arbitrary because it excludes a design inference. It eliminates the possibility that natural laws are insufficient explanations in some cases. No sentient agents allowed!
The premise of the rejection of the (so-called) God-of-the-gaps (GOTG) reasoning is that GOTG is an argument from silence. However, arguments from silence are not formal fallacies which means that they are not always fallacies. [Thus they can be informal fallacies if they are fallacies at all.]
Some silences are ‘deafening’.
To quote Dembski and Wells (and I’m not citing them as authorities but for their substantive argument):
“But when in times past people invoked the action of an intelligence to explain eclipses or the motion of planets, it was in ignorance of the relevant astronomical facts underlying these phenomena. We find ourselves in a radically different situation with regard to life’s origin: by knowing the relevant facts of biochemistry and molecular biology, we are in a position to assess how difficult it is for the chemical building blocks of life to arise and then arrange themselves into the information-rich structures required for cellular life. So long as design hypotheses are based on knowledge rather than ignorance, they are scientifically legitimate.”
-Dembski and Wells, The Design of Life, p.255.
Hi James,
The point about human/primate comparative genomics is that it provides multiple lines of evidence that all converge on the same conclusion.
Those that object to this evidence are typically not qualified to deal with it at a professional level: Meyer for example. I will be reviewing Meyer’s new book in the near future.
This is an easy topic to mislead Christians on if one is so inclined: the vast majority of Christians are (a) intensely desirous that the evidence be incorrect, and (b) no where near qualified to debunk the misleading arguments they eagerly wish to believe.
Hi John,
Please don’t take this as harsh, but all you’ve shown is that you don’t really understand evolutionary biology. You seem to be basing your thoughts on a misunderstanding of popular articles (news articles, perhaps). There was a post up-thread where several books were mentioned. They should be of some help – or, if you prefer online materials, some of my lectures might help get you started.
Dennis
Moara said:
“As a marine ecologist, I use evolutionary theory to try to figure out what’s happening in our oceans right now. I really feel that my calling in life is towards stewardship of creation, and conservation, and evolution science is the best tool to help me acheive that.”
Me:
I respect your opinion that you posted here, but I must disagree.
You are confounding a theory’s teleological value (i.e. usefulness) with its alethic value (i.e. truthfulness). A theory can be useful without being true.
For example, many civilizations in the ancient world were able to predict the position of stars and planets to an extraordinary degree.
What you may not have known is that these predictions were based on ***Geocentric*** models of the solar-system.
#John1453
What?
• “Or that there would be lots of gradual transitional fossils, except there aren’t any.”
What newspaper do you read? New transitional fossils are being found constantly! Here is a Wikepedia partial list of transitional fossils. Due of the rarity of conditions required for fossils, we do know that we will never find every “missing link”. But so far, we have found hundreds!
• “Or that ontogeny would recapitulate philogeny, except it doesn’t.”
Of course not! Most evolutionists abandoned recapitulation theory decades ago. Science has been a story of theories abandoned. That is the nature of scientific progress.
• “Or that we could construct a tree of life representing common descent, except that now it’s admitted that we can’t.”
Admitted by whom? This is news to me. Rather, even the most devout evolutionists are astonished by how well the tree we now construct from DNA resembles the tree Darwin drew without the benefit of DNA. Talk about accurate predictive power!
• “Or that we descended from apes, except now it’s thought that apes descended from us.”
No! You are probably referring to the most recent fossil discovery of an early primate transitional form (which you claim don’t exist??) which is believed to be the ancestor of apes and humans.
Re #John1453’s list of failed predictions, I think these should be added.
That fossils would emerge demonstrating the gradual evolution of Cambrian organisms, except they are still nowhere to be seen. Essentially all modern phyla spring into existence with no known precursors. Included in this are organisms such as trilobites with some of the most complex eyes known, and other advanced creatures that have no obvious predecessors anywhere.
That the genetic code is universal, except it isnt.
That phylogenies built on different genes would produce the same tree, except they don’t.
That we would find a solution to the origin of life problem, except we haven’t and none appears to be on the horizon. If anything the problem is getting worse.
That cellular life would be simple as Darwin thought, except it isn’t. It is an interconnected series of molecular machines all prefectly interacting and combining in ways that we can’t even begin to understand.
That there would be a unique nested hiearchy of life, except there isn’t. As New Scientist explained the tree of life breaks down and to explain this away evolutionists have to invent some story about ‘horizontal gene flow’. Moreover, elsewhere we find violations and contradictions in this supposed nested hiearchy, and these problems are again explained away by ‘convergent evolution’.
Saint and Sinner writes …
“For example, many civilizations in the ancient world were able to predict the position of stars and planets to an extraordinary degree. What you may not have known is that these predictions were based on ***Geocentric*** models of the solar-system.”
It was not Geocentricity that led to their predictive success, rather it was the application of pure geometry. Geocentricity, as you know, had to be convoluted in numerous ways to account for the movement of the stars and planets. In other words, rather than Geocentricity giving them insight into the movement of heavenly bodies, physical observation and geometry compelled then to contort their Geocentricity almost beyond recognition.
Listened to Venema’s lecture, and was quite unimpressed. A series of just so stories, assumptions based on unobserved processes, processes or observations that have or could have alternate explanations, and projections of his western based pyscyhology on what God should have or would have done had He actually created things rather than using evolution. The most that could be said about his presentation is that what he suggests and theorizes would be consistent with evolution, but not that they necessitate evolution as the only tenable explanation. The fact that some data is consistent with a particular explanation, does not mean that that the explanation is true (geocentrism or flat earth anyone?).
I’m with the skeptics on this one and Venema’s smug intellectual snobbery doesn’t convince me, nor should it bother anyone else. Woo hoo! if only I had a PhD in cell biology just like him then I would see the light and fall in line behind Darwin! I’m so glad to have been shown the error of my ways in such a smashingly condescending way that leaves me mentally exhausted and without any adequate response. I shall forthwith give up my beliefs in phlogistan, phrenology and a steady state universe. So long have I been in darkness, that I wail and gnash my teeth at my wasted years.
One doesn’t have to understand all of cell biology to be able to see the points where the theory of evolution fails. I regularly eat PhDs for lunch in my trial practice, regardless of the number of PhD’s or publications they have. That is to say, I’m never convinced of anything just because a PhD states it, regardless of the side that they are on.
That fact that I am extremely skeptical of evolution, does not, however, mean that it is wrong for Christians to believe in evolution or to pursue a career in that area. A belief in evolution, though it does provide sufficient grounds for atheism, does not necessitate atheism.
regards,
#John
Cliff said:
“But it remains that the history of science has debunked many gaps in our knowledge which were attributed to “the gods” by many ancients, and surely you know this.”
Me:
There are a few cases of this, but to cast that upon even paganism in general is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature and claims of pagan mythology.
Cliff said:
“How do we determine that? The more we learn about DNA, the more plausible Darwinism becomes. But I will agree with you that it still seems unlikely on some levels. But how do we know unless we exhaust the possibilities of natural explanations?”
Me:
I would deny that the more we know about DNA, the more likely Darwinism becomes. In fact, I believe that it is just the opposite.
Cliff said:
“Yes, you are correct. This is exactly how the typical atheist responds. But I didn’t write what I did to an atheist, but to you. So, more to the point, do you see some inconsistency in what I wrote about my belief both in natural evolution and the resurrection of Christ?”
Me:
Cliff,
I never said that someone couldn’t believe that. I am saying that it is still inconsistent.
If you’re going to eliminate the possibility of the special creation of life on the basis of methodological naturalism, then you should eliminate the claim of the Resurrection of Jesus on the same basis.
Theistic evolution is an unstable middle ground, and all too often, those in it become either atheists or heretics.
Kenneth Miller was mentioned earlier as a Darwinist who is a Christian. What was not mentioned was that he is also a Process Theist and recently denied the historicity of the Virgin Birth.
Dobzhansky is another “Christian” Darwinist. What is rarely mentioned is that he was a Theosophist.
Cliff said:
“But science is limited it what it can say about those possibilities. And science has not alternative but to search for natural causes until they have exhausted all possibilities. It is in this regard that the naturalistic approach of science serves us so well.”
Me:
Why? Why do you eliminate a design inference from the list of possibilities from the outset?
Should we disregard the supernatural claims of the Resurrection on the basis that we have not exhausted the list of naturalistic possibilities?
John, even if the said lecures do have such a tone, let us not respond in kind here.
Cliff said:
“It was not Geocentricity that led to their predictive success, rather it was the application of pure geometry.”
Me:
Yes. Nevertheless, those cultures still believed in geocentrism along with it.
My point is that simply because a theory can predict something and that prediction turns out to be true doesn’t mean that the theory is true.
Such would be to commit the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent:
If A is true –> B is true.
B is true.
.: A is true.
That is a fallacy.
My point was that Moara’s use of neo-Darwinism to help her do her work does not prove that Darwinism is true since other theories can account for the evidence just as well as (if not better than) neo-Darwinism.
Please note that I said, “gradual transitional fossils”. Note the word “gradual”. Furthermore, morphological similarity does not necessitate the explanation of either (a) common descent, or (b) linear genetic relationship. While such theories might be consistent with the evidence of similar morphology, they are not necessitated by it.
Note also that I was talking about failed predictions (usually the sort of thing that indicates problems in a theory, but I digress). Hence the failed prediction of ontogeny/philogeny does constitute a blow against evolution (well, in so far as anything could constitute a blow that comes up with just so stories faster than I can tell the one about how the elephant got its long nose).
Even the Guardian (national British newspaper) printed stories on the failed tree of life. For those who can’t to get out more and buy some newspapers, here’s a link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life
The article, from way back in January, was titled, “Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life”. And, as James writes, it also appeared in places like New Scientist.
My favourite just so stories, though, are the origin of life ones. And there are so many that it’s hard to choose just one as a favourite.
regards,
#John
CMP, Venema’s lectures were straight forward lectures, and had no snobby tone about them at all.
The comment I was mocking was his comment that I obviously don’t understand biology. That kind of intellectual snobbery should be held up and made fun of. And note that it was the snobbery I made fun of, not him personally. I’m sure he’s a fine professor; his lecture was certainly perspicacious, even if I disagreed with the conclusions that he draws from it. Moreover, I ended my comment by affirming that he and other evolutionists can validly hold their beliefs and remain Christians.
regards,
#John
John, thanks for the explanation. Sorry for the misunderstanding.