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""
Michael,
By the way, ErikW is correct when he notes that the Bible doesn’t teach that God _gave_ man a soul. It says that God breathed into man the breath of life and he _became_ a living soul. Modern science supports this notion, and this has been discussed by Nancy Murphy, Joel B. Green, and others.
~Kaz
re 215
D. Venema wrote, “re: Romans 1:20 – no one here is arguing that the natural world allows one to escape the natural conclusion that God is behind it all.”
Romans 1:20 only works as the writer intended if a person can look at the natural world and determine that it must be the result of the work of a god. It does not work if it means only that every person should assume that the natural world is the creation of a God, that is if as Venema writes, “TEs/ECs argue that everything – what we call natural, and what we call supernatural – is part of God’s domain. God works through direct causes, and secondary causes . . . Why can’t God use evolution as a secondary cause?”
God, being omnipotent, could use evolution as a secondary cause. But if he did then there would be no evidence that He created anything. The evidence would only suggest that entirely material, random and undirected processes are capable of forming all life as we observe it. Hence Romans 1:20 would lose all of its argumentative force.
re post 216
Whether the age of the earth can be “conclusively” proved depends on what is meant by “conclusively” and one’s epistomology. Assuming that one accepts the legitmacy of math and the hard sciences, the age of the earth is about as conclusive as one can get, though it’s a step short of those things that are directly experienced such as gravity or the warmth of the sun.
The hard sciences are categorically different from evolutionary biology, which remains unconfirmed both experimentally and observationally and which cannot be falsified (again, unlike hard sciences such as (most) physics.
the mustard seed and other “false” statements
It is factually false for Jesus to state that the mustard seed is the smallest. There are several ways of dealing with that fact. Jesus could be intending to say something else. Jesus may not be making a factual statement. Jesus, as human, could be mistaken (not a stretch, he didn’t know the time of his second coming). He could be using cultural knowledge, etc.
The same principles of interpretation get used every time we come across a factual error in the Bible, such as the sun rising, the four corners of the earth, the existence of a firmanent, God being described as breathing or having nostrils, etc. It is not entirely dissimilar to the way we have to deal with prophecies that did not come true as predicted (Ninevah not destroyed, Tyre not destroyed as predicted, etc.). That is, something else is intended by the writer of text than the accuracy or correctness of the apparent factual content of the statement.
regards,
#John
You know, it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between what Jesus did with the mustard seed parable and what we see in Genesis. At least with the mustard seed, the fact remains that for the people he was talking to IT WAS the smallest seed. It was culturally correct and accurate.
In the Genesis story, if the creation of Adam and Eve are not to be taken literally in any sence or the cosmology there taken literally in any sence there is not an ounce of truth to it anywhere! Therefore, it seems to me it is not the same things as the mustard seed story at all.
In the Genesis story God would of been using an outright untruth in all times, places, and cultures to convey His truth. And telling it as if it were absolute fact. I’m sorry, but I have a problem with that idea.
And someone here has likened taking Revelation literally as the same thing as taking Genesis literally. I don’t think that is accurate either. We all can see that there is a lot of symbolism in Revelation that we may not understand at this point. But the idea discussed above isn’t even calling Genesis symbolism, it is simply saying that God used a total untruth that was believed at the time and told it as truth Himself to get his point across.
#John,
“God, being omnipotent, could use evolution as a secondary cause. But if he did then there would be no evidence that He created anything. The evidence would only suggest that entirely material, random and undirected processes are capable of forming all life as we observe it.”
I do not know of a single Christian who accepts evolution who would agree with that last statement. You clearly do not understand Christians who accept evolution. I think it would take an hour or so of face-to-face conversation (which I think I would very much enjoy with you) for you to understand how Christians like myself think about origins.
re post 253
Given that Genesis was written using cultural truths about cosmology, it would be just as true as the cultural truths about mustard seeds.
That is partly what Walton argues in his recently released book.
regards,
#John
#John,
Re post 255
I still don’t think it is the same. There is no basis in fact at all in the Genesis story–it is a totally false product of people’s imaginations without an iota of truth to it if the folks that are speaking here about it are correct. At least in the culture of Jesus day that He was speaking to, the mustard seed was literally the smallest known seed.
There seems to me to be quite a gap between that idea and telling a completely imagined story as if it were absolute fact.
Cherylu,
We see what we want to see in Genesis, I suppose.
Even when I was an avowed YEC, I still felt like Genesis 1 read like it was more poetic, and more mythic, than literal, historical, and scientific. You say that Revelation gives obvious clues of symbolism. Are you suggesting that Genesis 2 and 3 do not? Talking snakes? Magical trees? Woman formed out of a rib of man? Now I understand how a person could take these things literally. But come on! There is at least a hint that the story might be allegorical, don’t you think?
Cliff,
Allergories that I have read generally have a pretty close correspondence to what they are actually portraying. I don’t see that in the Genesis account if evolution is correct. A woman being formed from a man’t rib is, for instance, an allegory for what? I keep asking that and no one can come up with an answer.
And some of us have been in religious circles all of our lives where these things were taken very literally. There are a whole lot of what you call “magical” things described in the Bible. I would call them supernatural.
re post 254
What evidence is there that God was/is involved in evolution?
I’ll give a hint: none. And no one has ever postulated any.
Theistic evolution is merely a parallel belief in a God that is grounded in other evidences (i.e., apart from the observable nature). Theistic evolutionists bring their beliefs about God to their theory of evolution, they do not derive beliefs about God from evolution.
They cannot do the latter, because nothing in evolution suggests the existence of any kind of God at all. Indeed, under evolutionary theory it is more likely that a belief in God evolved.
They do the former because, believing in God, and then being convinced of the accuracy of evolution, they must believe that God used evolution. However, no theistic evolutionist can point to any trace of anything in evolution that would indicate a non-material cause for any aspect of evolution. Consequently, the meaning of Romans 1:20 is vitiated except in regard to the fine tuning of the universe / cosmos.
One of the grounds for stating that belief in evolution is a compromise of Christian faith is that atheism is, and has been, a conscious and intended purpose of the research program that is evolution in general. Evolution is the intentional search for a material cause for the origin and development of life in all its forms. It is not a value neutral subject, though it cloaks itself in scientific methodology and technique (which themselves may or may not be value neutral).
regards,
#John
re mustard seeds
It’s unlikely that the farmers in Jesus day did not know about poppies, which have smaller seeds than the mustard plant. The history of the cultivation of the poppy plant, Paper somniferums history begins with the ancient Sumerians. The ancient Sumerians referred to the flower as “hul gil” or plant of joy. The Sumerians passed their knowledge of the plant to the Assyrians. The Assyrians gave their knowledge of poppy cultivation to the Babylonians who passed their understanding to the Egyptians. inThe opium trade flourished during the reign of the Egyptian Pharaohs. The Egyptian civilization promoted use of opium as a sleep aid. Even Egyptian Pharaohs were buried with opium artifacts. All prior to Jesus.
So the saying was factually false and known to be so in Jesus’ day.
As to ancient cosmologies, the ancient Hebrews had no concept of “outer space” and believed in a solid firmanent in which the stars and planets were embedded and which held up water on the outer side. Factually untrue, of course.
Furthermore, the first chapter of Genesis is not a historical literature genre, but more likely the origin of the cosmos retold using the structure of a temple building narrative, in which God builds his temple / dwelling. Given that genre and structure, the points of contact are not with some “real historical time periods” but with the significant aspects of temples and worship. The narrative is “true” in so far as it relates “true” things about temples and worship and the dwellings of gods. The other aspects of the narrative are fictionalized details, in the same way as the details in Jesus’ parables are fictionalized details that are not germaine to the truth being taught, and which are not intended to be taught as truths.
regards,
#John
#John1453 pointed out in comment #252:
“The hard sciences are categorically different from evolutionary biology, which remains unconfirmed both experimentally and observationally and which cannot be falsified (again, unlike hard sciences such as (most) physics.”
This is a point I think needs to be more clearly delineated by evolutionists, of where they do draw the line. It appears they are attempting to fit man into the picture vis a vis the hard sciences, such as archeology, and geology, when there is no way to really determine at what point, if any (and it’s the if any that’s the big question) man became a thinking, individual species, separate from his primate ancestors.
As I have already pointed out there is a huge difference in the adaptive behavior of man and animals which causes us to progress, or regress, or become extinct because of having to survive in the ever changing world around us. So certainly our awareness and progress would be greater than that of early man. That does not mean however that we evolved from a species similar to us however, only that our behavior is different because of the knowledge and wisdom the generations before us have learned and passed on to us, and how we will do the same for future generations.
This doesn’t take God out of the picture, or compromise Christianity like Darwinism does, it just makes it clearer that we are created in His image, and even after the fall are designed to continue to be able to survive in the physical world on our own. We are also given the opportunity to be born again spiritually, something that apes are not.
Now, using reason alone, one would think if apes through no fault of their own were not human beings and then at some point became human, one would have thought that Christ would have included them in the salvation process, not because of their sin, but because of their innocence.
John:
There IS experimental evidence verifying evolution.
More than one scientist has observed/induced evolution in micro-organisms. These organisms grow quickly, and hundreds, thousands of generations can be observed in a relatively short time. In this case, experimental science observed them developing into significantly different organisms, due to stress factors in the environment.
Thus verifying Evolution experimentally, observationally.
YEC votes
I note that the votes for YEC continue to increase. It could, perhaps, be one person voting from 80+ different computers, or it could be a number of people voting from one computer each. Nevertheless, even if it is only one person, I have a question.
Given that a young earth is not a tenable belief based upon what God has enabled us to learn about His creation, (a) why do you voter(s) still believe in a young earth? and (b) do you believe that it is a compromise to hold to anything other than a young earth?
mbaker’s question in #261 re the salvation of animals
Interesting and perceptive point you raise. Some people do believe that the second coming will involve not only a resurrection of humans and a renewal of the earth, but also the same for animals.
In addition, one might speculate as to whether human language, intellect and morality are or came about like a light switch–either fully on or fully off–or if the emerged very slowly. If the former, it makes your question answerable, if the latter, then there would not be a genetically significant difference between those humanids whom God holds morally accountable as people because they are deemed “humans” and those whom he does not because they are “beasts”.
regards,
#John
re post 262 and experimental evidence for evolution
I wasn’t clear that I’m using experimental confirmation in a restrictive sense. There is evidence of mutations in the genetic code of organisms, and there is evidence that these mutations do have effects on the organisms.
However, there is no evidence that such changes can lead to the increase in informational content of the genetic code, to new structures, to new functions for old structures, or to a new organism that is sufficiently different from the previous so as to constitute something more than a different species.
Lenski’s work in observing 10s of thousands of generations of bacteria pretty much destroys hope in the possibility of genetic mutation as the key factor in the evolutionary development of all life. He has observed more generations in that one species than would be available for the development of whales from land animals, different types of sauropod dinosaurs, the development of horses, etc. He’s observed harmful mutations and mutations that lead to loss of information (but a corresponding useful effects), etc. But he has not observed the formation of new structures or of organisms that are less bacteria-like and more like some kind of new organism.
Hence the offerings of evolutionary biology are to meagre to justify Christian belief in them as a viable explanation for all life as we see it, especially in light of the fact that a Christian is not limited to solely material causes. Christians get sucked into researching evolutionary biology because it is the dominant paradigm for universities, for teaching jobs, for academic credibility and for research grants. Nevertheless, because the underlying ideology and purpose of the research program is to establish an explanation for life that excludes God, participation in the research program is a compromise of Christianity. Of course, not all research that might be later used by an evolutionist to support that theory is a compromise, for example research in cell development or genetics.
regards,
#John
Renton,
We already know that normal cells can mutate and grow rapidly because of the disease of cancer, and other diseases such as viruses mutating into other forms , as in the case of H1N1. That does not fail to make them viruses, however.
So while you could possibly deduce from the experiment you talked about that that was a evolutionary process which pointed to the origins of life, I would argue that you would need much more proof than that, since all cells divide. Most of us learned that in high school biology. I could put frog cells into a petrie dish and watch them grow into different forms over time the further way they got from the original cell, but couldn’t make them into human beings. Probably would have gotten a better grade if I could have!
Further, if you are going base your case on this crude experiment, how would you explain the differences in children from the same mother and father? While each child is different in some respect, in looks and personality they still originated from the same species. And are we not discussing the origins of our species?
Furthermore, if we going to go on the basis of cell division creating differences, let’s discuss cloning. Dolly, the cloned sheep and other animals which have been produced in a test tube don’t look exactly the same either, although they came from the same cells of their own species originally.
I think you are proving my point in #261 above when you say:
“In this case, experimental science observed them developing into significantly different organisms, due to stress factors in the environment.”
For that matter, men and women are significantly different creatures, on that I think we can all agree. However, despite the tongue in cheek book about one of us being from Mars and the other from Venus, we are still the same species.
We have not evolved, only been created differently for different purposes. Evolution, although it cannot prove its own theory absolutely insists that animals became man. Why then can’t men become animals if we can jump species due to ‘stress factors in the environment’?
John1453:
It seems to me that you are guilty of the same mistake that you accuse YECs of making. You apparently don’t realise that many of them regard an old earth to be as unjustified according to scripture, and antithetical to the gospel, as you apparently think evolutionary theory is. The precise same question could be posed to you: since separate ancestries for humans and chimps is not a tenable belief based upon what God has enabled us to learn about His creation, why do you still (apparently) maintain a belief in it?.
To continue #265 so it ties to the original subject of the post: Saying that stress factors in the environment were the causal factor in the evolution of man from an ape, based on crude experiments is quite a compromise with the Bible, IMO, from the get go.
Adaptive behavior, on the other hand, doesn’t necessitate a belief or a knowledge in the scientific method behind it in order for it to take place among both the educated and uneducated alike. Nor, if all present knowledge should cease to exist due to some causal factor in the environment, would that stop man from continually seeking something higher than himself simply because we are created in the image of God, not Godzilla.
Related blog threads and upcoming conferences
I have directly copied most of the below from Scot McKnight’s blog, where a conversation similar to this thread is also ongoing.
“Biologos has planned a working group symposium (exclusive and invitation only or I would have it on my calendar as a must) to look at just this issue. The workshop will bring together 15 leading scientists, 15 leading pastors and 15 leading theologians to explore this issue. Tim Keller, Francis Collins, and Alister McGrath are among the “names” involved. . . .
As part of the preparation for this workshop Bruce Waltke (or here), Old Testament scholar, author of a Genesis commentary and other books, was commissioned to write a white paper identifying barriers for the typical evangelical theologians to accepting the possibility of creation by means of an evolutionary process. The results of his research are available here: Waltke Scholarly Essay.”
Waltke’s essay is at this address:
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Waltke_scholarly_essay.pdf
The lead post from McKnight is here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/
The conversation McKnight’s blog is happening here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/10/evolution-and-evangelicals-wha_comments.html
regards,
#John
John and others, regarding the empirical proofs of evolution:
Scientists have shown bacteria evolving due to stress, into significantly different organisms. And we hear every day for example, about one flu bug, evolving into a significantly different – and more powerful one: N1H1.
How much evidence do you want? More than that … combined with the geological and archeological and anthropological records?
And massive evidence against all miracles in general?
There is therefore, massive evidence for evolution. Asking for more evidence than that, you set the bar for what constitutes evidence, unreasonably high. Much, much, higher than you set for yourself, when Christians assert that they themselves can walk on water and so forth. (See Patton asserting that mere “probability” is good enough to consider something proven.
Be consistent?
Though in any case, too, evolution can easily be phrased in ways consistent with the Bible; the “great” universe God made and so forth.
God told us in Rom. 1.20 that the material universe, evidences the nature of God. And so, then the universe clearly evidences evolution. So that clearly God must essentially have chosen evolution, as the means by which he created things. That was his nature, and the nature of his creation. As say, the Catholic CHurch allows.
It is not necessary to show an organism evolving into another, entirely different kind of animal; it is enough for now (combined with other evidence) to show that one organism evolved into another subspecies or another species, to adequately conclude that in effect, evolution seems highly indicated as the way that God chose to create different animals.
And that has been sufficiently demonstrated, by dozens of different verifications systems, all cross-triangulating at the same intersection and conclusion: the existence of Evolution.
To ask for more than that, is to ask for infinitely more evidence that you ask for your own beliefs; for which only “faith” and no evidence at all is required.
John1453,
Since you are still talking about evolution, why don’t you talk about it with Dennis?
re incorrect statements respecting evolution
1. There is not a single peer reviewed paper in which any one has shown bacteria evolving due to stress, into significantly different organisms.
2. Is is inaccurate to state that one flu bug evolves into a significantly different one. A more apt, though simplified analogy, might be to think of different flus as different kinds of dogs. I copy the below from a website on viruses:
“The quick answer is that there is no basic difference. All influenza viruses come from the same family of viruses (Orthomyxoviridae), and furthermore both swine flu and bird flu are caused by the same species of virus, known as influenzavirus A or the influenza A virus. However, just as there are genetic differences among humans, who are all of one species, so are there genetic differences among the influenza A virus. And just as genetic differences may make some people more susceptible to certain illnesses or create certain physical differences, so can the genetic differences in the virus create various characteristics.”
I note also that H1N1 (not N1H1) is not significantly more powerful than many other flus. The differences between it and other flu viruses is that H1N1 (1) tends to be a spring-summer epidemic rather than fall-winter, (2) in addition to being more prevalent in the spring-summer than other flus, it can and does occur throughout the year while more “typical” flus are largely seasonal, and (3) it can affect individuals of all age groups, rather than predominantly the ederly or very young (though it has more serious effects for women, and though the Spanish flu did kill healthy males). Though these facts are beside the point, that Renton makes these simple errors detracts from his credibility on other points.
3. I set the evidentiary bar no higher than one finds in the “hard” sciences, where falsifiability and experimental repeatability are cornerstones of advancing knowledge. (For those into the philosophy of science and into the debates following Kuhn’s work, yes, I know that “science” is very hard to define). Evolutionary biology and evolutionary science cannot meet the standards that are basic and common fare in the other sciences.
4. Evolution of organisms from one kind to a significantly different kind (e.g., say land dwelling pig to aquatic pig) is not observed in the present day nor has it been observed it experimentally. Consequently, evolution is a not a theory of science per se, but rather a historical theory or, better stated, a particular narrative of history that lacks many key aspects of verification.
5. Renton gets Romans 1:20 completely backwards. He argues that since God created the universe he must have used evolution. The opposite, however, is what is meant by Paul (and God): from looking at nature we can determine that God did it.
Renton,
It is possible to have the same evidence and come to different conclusions. In the end, like two lawyers working with the same evidence from two different perspectives, it comes down to what the judge and the jury believes is the most true that ultimately decides the case.
We both agree cells divide and mutate as I pointed out to you in my comment above, and you have agreed with. But whether they jump species in doing so is the question. I don’t think evolutionists have provided clear cut evidence at all that the randomness of that cell division process translates into the order of all creation that we see now, each animal and human acting and reacting according to its own kind in the species.
This is a basic fact of life, as we know it, which does not necessitate that I prove the existence of God or miracles, since it is science is based on empirical evidence. Yet many evolutionists are drawing spiritual conclusions that God began man from apes, simply on very skimpy empirical evidence provided by the discovery of ancient bones. Yet at the same time they are telling creationists to disbelieve a literal interpretation of Genesis because it is ancient history!
So how can we not question what someone else here called the apparent schizophrenia of that?
re post 266
Not sure from his post whether Tom is a YEC or not. He writes, “The precise same question could be posed to you: since separate ancestries for humans and chimps is not a tenable belief based upon what God has enabled us to learn about His creation, why do you still (apparently) maintain a belief in it?.”
Separate ancestries for humans and chimps is a very tenable belief for many reasons, some of which I have outlined above. Given certain initial premises regarding epistomology (how we know what we know) and God’s interaction with humans, a young earth is not.
BTW, I would use the same initial starting point for examining both beliefs, so it is not the case that I come to different conclusions on the two issues because I start from different premises for each.
regards,
#John
John 1453,
I’m really tired of having my views represented by forcing meanings on what I said that I don’t agree with. It is really no different then me saying all Calvinists believe God is evil since they believe all things are ordained by God even though they state catagorically that they do not. Simply because I can not personally reconcile a God who is in total control with a God who is good does not prevent someone else with greater insight then me from doing so. Thus it borders on slander to accuse all Calvinists believe in a evil God even though I would personally have to believe in an evil God if I accepted Calvinism
You stated “God, being omnipotent, could use evolution as a secondary cause. But if he did then there would be no evidence that He created anything. The evidence would only suggest that entirely material, random and undirected processes are capable of forming all life as we observe it” as a response to questions about Romans undermining Romans 1:20. No Christian theistic evolutionist that I have ever met would agree with this statement. They believe, as I do, that the existence of the universe itself and the evolutionary process are nearly irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god. The odds of the universe just springing into existence from nothing with no cause whatsoever is so ridiculously small without a god behind it as to be absurd. The same goes for evolution. I think it was posted in a newer post on this blog that the odds of evolution evolving bacteria to humans in 10 billion years is like 10 to the 24 millionth power. To me accepting that this bacteria evolved eventually into humans almost necessitates believing in a god because without someone guiding the process it just wouldn’t happen. In the end game for a person who accepts a naturalistic evolution without a god is trying to win the cosmic lottery in which an almost infinite number of tickets say “God” while only one says “No God”. They are betting against the house.
#John1453:
Concerning your remarks about humans and chimps and considering earlier comments about concordance. How do you explain the basic fact that independent methods of determining ape/primate phylogenies converge upon the same tree?
Here is one based on SINEs – http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4825/sinesxl7.jpg
Here is one based on cytochrome c sequence – http://www.pnas.org/content/100/10/5873/F4.large.jpg
Here are two more that are both independent, the one on the left comes from ERVs, and the one on the right from the cytochrome B sequence – http://nondiscovery.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tree-ervs-and-cytochrome1.jpg
Here is another based on olfactory pseudogenes – http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3324/F2.large.jpg
Irrespective of whether you consider each one to be evidence for common descent, does the convergence of independent methods upon the same tree not make the case really quite compelling? If not, what else is going on here?
John 1453,
It is evident that you still are unable to separate the science of evolution from the philosophy of naturalism which includes evolution as a part of it. You continually claim that evolution is by definition a random, unguided process. This is philosophy, not science. The science simply shows that higher life forms came from lesser life forms through genetic mutations. The idea that these mutations were completely random and unguided with no rhyme or reason to them is not science, but philosophy. Now don’t get me wrong a lot of noisy people claim otherwise to try to give credibility to their position by calling it science, but simply saying that ones views are science does not make it so.
re post 274
Not all theistic evolutionists believe as Michael T does, to wit, that the statistical improbability of evolution either (a) occuring in the first place and/or (b) resulting in humans is so high that it necessitates God as a causal influence on the process.
The Biologos website, a project of geneticist Francis Collins et al., does not make the inference that Michael T does, nor do many other theistic evolutionists.
Some theistic evolutionists believe that the very laws that God built into the universe at the big bang make evolution inevitable. Or they believe that there is some yet undetected component of life that makes the unfolding of initial life into the many varied forms today inevitable.
The Biologos site itself states, “BioLogos requires no miraculous events in its account of God’s creative process, except for the origins of the natural laws guiding the process. Instead, BioLogos states that “once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity,” and “humans are part of this process.” Moreover, “once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.””
Biologos clearly is not bothered by statistical improbabilities.
Interestingly, the Biologos does not provide a direct answer to the question, “what role could God have in evolution?”. It provides only the following speculation about what could, but may not be:
“It is thus perfectly possible that God might influence the creation in subtle ways that are unrecognizable to scientific observation. In this way, modern science opens the door to divine action without the need for law breaking miracles. Given the impossibility of absolute prediction or explanation, the laws of nature no longer preclude God’s action in the world. Our perception of the world opens once again to the possibility of divine interaction.”
What is that but an attempt at a (more ?) sophisticated God of the gaps argument or a retelling of the invisible gardener story with God as the gardener?
So, it is not the case that I misrepresent theistic evolutionists.
Furthermore, Michael T does not address the fundamental problem with theistic evolution: it provides no means for the detection of god, and is inherently indisposed to such detection. Most evolutionists are not scared off by the statistical improbability of evolution, and typically offer the stock response, “well we’re here, aren’t we? so we must have beaten the odds”.
So my conclusion remains: it is a compromise for Christians to believe in or support evolution, even of the theistic variety.
regards,
#John
re post 276
Michael T, in his post 276 writes, “The science simply shows that higher life forms came from lesser life forms through genetic mutations.”
The science “simply shows” nothing of the kind. There is not a single example in existence of a so-called higher life form coming from a so-called lower one. Lenski has grown tens of thousands (IIRC, I believe over 40,000) without ever observing the “lower” life form of bacteria evolve into anything higher. That is more generations than are available for the change of landdweller into a modern whale.
Morphological differences and similarities among fossils prove nothing in relation to whether one form evolved into the next because there is no existent DNA that can be examined to trace the genetic linkages between them. The relationship of “evolution” between the two is merely an inferred hypothesis based on time of occurance of morphological similarities. Lenski’s experiments would not only indicate that there is no experimental evidence to support that inferred hypothesis, but that such a development on the basis of genetic mutation alone is unlikely. And of course, if we leave genetic mutation as an operative aspect of evolution, then we leave evolution altogether and get into some other sort of speculation.
Furthermore, If we restrict ourselves only to facts, the fossil record provides a wide spectrum of data which are not consistent with evolution and which, moreover, have falsified several fundamental predictions of evolution.
As to the difference between philosophy and science, Michael T misconstrues the problem and fails to grasp its depth. It is not possible to practice science apart from a philosophy of science, whether that science is explicitly voiced or not. Science is not mere technique; if it were then evolution would certainly fail because there is no technique available that shows or detects evolution occurring.
Furthermore, the concepts of “random”, “undirected” and “materialist” are not just philosophical concepts but foundation stones to the theory of evolution. That evolution is materialist goes without saying, because that is what science is. Whether science is merely methodologically materialist is a moot point, because a methodological practice of materialism has the same result regardless of one’s alleged philosophy: it can only detect material entities and relationships (such as the relationship of cause and effect) between material entities. Consequenlty it can only hypothesize and test for material entities and the relationships between them.
Although Darwin was not the first to put forth an evolutionary theory, he was situated at its very beginnings and was certainly responsible for its popularization and development. For Darwin “undirected” was a key component of evolution. Criticizing those who believed that evolution was somehow guided, Darwin wrote:
[to be continued]
“Morphological differences and similarities among fossils prove nothing in relation to whether one form evolved into the next because there is no existent DNA that can be examined to trace the genetic linkages between them.”
We are not looking for ‘proof’, we are looking for converging lines of evidence. Moreover, when proposing a series of transitional fossils nobody is proposing that they represent a series of direct ancestors and descendents, the likelihood of finding such a sequence is precluded by the fact that evolution is a branching process. Expecting to find such a direct line would be the equivalent of taking a random walk through a graveyard and expecting to find your direct ancestors. Instead what you are much more likely to find are people who are related to you to varying degrees. It’s the same thing when we look at the fossil record, and just one reason why so many people absolutely deplore the term ‘missing link’.
“the fossil record provides a wide spectrum of data which are not consistent with evolution and which, moreover, have falsified several fundamental predictions of evolution.”
Such as?
John1453,
it provides no means for the detection of god, and is inherently indisposed to such detection.
What other science provides a means to detect God? Can you list them for me?
I’m personally a theistic gravitationalist. I’m also a firm supporter of theistic meteorology. Yet for the life of me I do not see those sciences pointing to, or even allowing for God to be the cause of them all.
My insistence that God be behind gravity and the weather is simply a theologically influenced choice. Nothing about those sciences, or any science for that matter, calls for or necessitates a belief in God. And there’s certainly no requirement it be the God of Christianity either.
In my opinion, stop pontificating around and start a discussion with Dennis already. You’re like a major leaguer getting his rocks off by striking out little leaguers.
Re post 280
The thrust of CMP’s post was the issue of compromise, which I am going to stick to as much as possible. If he writes a lede (newspaper term) on theistic evolution, or plain vanilla evolution, then I’ll get into it. Here I’m not going to hijact the thread and so, in so far as I am able, I will digress only to address comments in posts but keep coming back to the issue of compromise. In which vein I will now continue my post 278.
continuing #John’s post 278
Although Darwin was not the first to put forth an evolutionary theory, he was situated at its very beginnings and was certainly responsible for its popularization and development. For Darwin “undirected” was a key component of evolution. Criticizing those who believed that evolution was somehow guided, Darwin wrote:
“. . . no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations… which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief “that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines,” like a stream “along definite and useful lines of irrigation.” [Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, second edition (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1883), vol. II, pp. 428-429]”
Darwin’s view has been consistently maintained to the present day, and as examples I cite:
(1) paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” [Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its Significance for Man, revised edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 345]
(2) college biology text “A View of Life” (1981), [evolution is] “a natural process without purpose or inherent direction.” [pp. 586-587]
(3) “Evolutionary Biology” (1998), “[b]y coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.” [p. 5]
(4) “According to Life: The Science of Biology” (2001), accepting “the Darwinian view… means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that… evolutionary change occurs without any ‘goals.’ The idea that evolutionary change is not directed toward a final goal or state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.” [p. 3]
(5) In 2006, 38 Nobel laureates sent an open letter to the Kansas Board of Education insisting that evolution is “the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”
regards,
#John
Before I address post 279
With respect to the fact that evolution appears to be unguided an undirected for both atheists and theists, but must have for theists some hidden and secret direction / guidance, I note that Stephen Barr agrees with Francis Collins that although evolution looks like “a random and undirected process,” it nevertheless could have been guided by God. “Evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God’s perspective the outcome would be entirely specified.” [Collins, The Language of God, p. 205.]
I agree with N.T. Wright, who has helpfully exposed the cultural and philosophical underpinnings of evolution. He wrote, “Darwin, Wright suggests, “was as much a symptom as a cause of the deism or epicureanism which then came to be associated with him.”
If you’re an epicurean, Wright explains, then while there may be god or gods somewhere, they are a long way away and the key is that “this world has its own processes which are rumbling along, and so evolution is basically an epicurean idea–read Lucretius.”
Evolution is a rationalist research program, because of which it uses rationalist concepts for its driving forces. For example, organisms are not optimally fit. That rationalist conclusion inherently excludes design. Wright’s discussion of deism helps understand the traction that rationalism has in evolutionary theory:
“Once god gets pushed out of the process, then of course what happens must happen from within rather than from outside. Then you can caricature the idea of divine intervention. Because if you’re a deist or an epicurean you’ve got this distant god, who if he’s going to do anything in the world would have to reach down and rather incongruously mess around, and then go away again.”
In Darwin’s day such messing around was believed to be beneath god’s dignity, and so exclusively naturalistic explanations were proposed.
But back to the logical possibility, espoused by theistic evolutionists, that God could have created a process that looks random and undirected even though He actually directs it and specifies its outcomes. John West has discussed this possibility in his book “Darwin’s Conservatives”. West rejects this possibility and draws our attention to the fact that the relevant question for a Christian is whether God did use that logical possibility, or is it more likely that he did it in some other way, given what He has revealed to us about His character and own self-explanations regarding His creation, what He has done, and how He interacts with His created world? West’s answer is clear:
[to be continued after some one else posts something]
John, I take it you are a fan of the Discovery Institute, the organisation which advocates Intelligent Design, since all your references come from one of their articles – http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/god_and_evolution_a_response_t.html .
Have you had a look at the Biologic Institute to see how much ground-breaking science they are producing there? If you have some time, say during a commercial break of your favourite TV program, you could read through their entire literature of published articles.
re post 283
Yes, I am a fan of the Discovery Institute, regardless of whether they prove that design exists in nature. They certainly are good at poking holes in the overinflated claims of evolutionists.
However, I don’t read their material exclusively, but visit talkorigins, PZ Myers, Coyne, Biologos, Behe’s blog, various books, etc. I find that in the blog world people often copy material without attribution (which is fine, it’s blogging, not the writing of scholarly papers, and it’s the argument, not the attribution that is important). Sometimes I use stuff from one author, only to find it has been used elsewhere (before or after). I digest the stuff I read until I understand it and come to a position of agreement or disagreement on it. Then I use the material in formulating my own thoughts.
So, for example, I have long known about randomness, materialism and undirectedness in evolution. When Michael T. denied that such concepts were inherent and foundational concepts in evolution, I searched on line for material that I knew existed and which supported my contention. The Evolution News and Views article had the best short summary, so I used it.
re post 279 and morphology and links
It was, and is, a contention of evolution that it is gradual. Changes to reproductive DNA occur randomly and infrequently and then are propogated throughout the organism and the organisms group over time. Hence, it was a prediction of evolution that fossils should also show this gradualism. As a small morphological change progress through an species, we should find the same species with both morphologies being fossilized together, and then, gradually we should see one of the morphologies win out and be solely represented. And so on. However, this prediction was falsified. What we observe is the sudden appearance of a species, then species stability for an extended period of time, and then disappearance (for many). We have never observed any gradualism at all. Ever. Anywhere.
Consequently, some evolutionists discarded gradualism for hopeful monsters or punctuated equilibrium. The result is the rather obvious fact that theistic evolutionists, like atheist ones, overstate the evidence for common descent (a cornerstone of evolution), particularly in regards to both morphological and molecular (i.e., DNA or protein) phylogenies. The devised trees disagree not only between morphology and molecular approaches, but even molecular trees disagree with each other (depends on what protein or DNA one starts with).
Of course, this problem has not dampened the enthusiams of either atheists or theists for evolution and their concomitant belief that there is a tree out there somewhere. I suggest, though, that atheistic and theistic evolutionists might more profitably spend their time with Linus in the pumpkin patch and wait for the Great Pumpkin to arrive with a valid evolutionary tree.
regards,
#John
re post 283
Or instead of wasting my entire commercial reading that literature, I could read all the literature providing examples of evolution (note, “examples of” and not “examples of processes from which evolution might be inferred and extrapolated until we are breathing nothing but speculative ether”) and still have time to get up and make myself a snack.
Since I have a satisfactory theory of origins (direct creation) with a long history of support by orthodox believers, I’m not waiting with bated breath for the Discovery Institute, Biologic Institute, Biologos foundation or any one else to come up with another theory. Given that evolutionary theory does not pose a significant challenge to that belief, and given that evolution is inherently a compromise of Christian faith and belief, I’m not overly troubled by huffing and puffing evolutionists, even of the theistic kind.
Given that Romans 1:20 demands that unbelievers be left with no excuse for their unbelief when they look at what God has made, any theory that posits the origin and development of nature by means of entirely random, undirected, material processes in which the hand of God is not detectible is wrong.
Of course, if evolution is true, my interpretation of Romans 1:20 must be wrong. Perhaps it only refers to the things that God made at a cosmological scale (e.g., the fine tuning of the universe). The emphasis of the Old Testament is on the heavens declaring the handiwork of God, rather than the trees (though the latter is not an absent concept). As it stands, however, there is no reason to question my current interpretation of the verse.
re post 270
It’s not entirely clear what Renton is claiming in respect of the nature of faith, but I would argue that it is not true that faith is only faith if it has no evidence, or that there is no evidence for the Christian faith. My faith, for example, is not without evidence. As stated in a previous post, I am not asking for a higher standard of evidence for evolution than is expected in other branches of science, nor are my standards infinitely high.
re post 280
Somewhere along the way Greg either missed the boat I was on or jumped out, because none of his comments are germaine to the discussion I was engaging in.
I’m not arguing that one necessarily uses science to detect God. Though if Greg wants examples I would point to evidence for design, evidence for purpose, and evidence for the fine tuning of the universe, all of which can be and are investigated using “science”. That is, we investigate the fine tuning of the universe by using math and physics to determine that the universe is finely tuned. The ramifications of that fine tuning do, of course, go beyond science.
What I’m arguing is that evolution inherently rejects God and that rejection is integral to the entire project.
Plus, I find it far too difficult to believe in an invisible, undetectable gardener…
John 1453,
Again I will state that all the evolutionists in the world stating that evolution is an unguided process and claiming it was science could not make it so. I don’t give a rats rear end about what Darwin said or what Dawkins said or what anyone else says. They are all talking philosophy, not science even if they claim otherwise. You can explain how something could have happened without divine intervention from science (i.e. why when I throw a ball in the air it comes back down), but you can’t prove that there was in fact no divine intervention because science can’t test or prove that. Furthermore science can’t prove where all the physical laws came from in the first place. The very fact that everything can be explained in such a mathematical manner is itself evidence of design.
I also think if your way off base when you start complaining that God can’t be detected if evolution is true. God can’t be detected no matter what. I don’t care if your a YEC, OEC, Gap theorist, or TE, you can’t scientifically and experimentally prove the existence of God. You can look at the evidence of design around you and postulate that the most logical conclusion is the existence of a designer, you can formulate philosophical proofs of the existence of God, you can look at the historicity of the Gospel accounts, but you can’t experimentally prove He exists. If you could we would have no use for faith. Doing this only becomes a problem when you are talking to someone who accepts the philosophy of naturalism, but that isn’t science, but rather a philosophy which says the only things that are real are those which can be proven by the scientific method. Of course that philosophy can’t itself be scientifically be proven anymore then Christian philosophy can be and therefore is self-contradictory.
Also evolution doesn’t reject God. Your definition of evolution is incorrect because it assumes philosophical implications – and again I don’t give a rats rear end if people claim otherwise. Evolution doesn’t reject God, the philosophy of naturalism rejects God. They are separate ideas that have simply been merged in most peoples understandings.
“It’s unlikely that the farmers in Jesus day did not know about poppies, which have smaller seeds than the mustard plant. ”
Both Poppies and White mustard of the kind grown in the Mediterranean have seeds between 1-1.5mm.
Renton: “Scientists have shown bacteria evolving due to stress, into significantly different organisms. And we hear every day for example, about one flu bug, evolving into a significantly different – and more powerful one: N1H1.
How much evidence do you want? More than that … combined with the geological and archeological and anthropological records?”
You think creationists never heard of the flu?
Even the most hard-core creationist agrees that you can breed living creatures into quite different creatures. The test from a creationist’s viewpoint is creative power. Whether all this breeding can produce something that wasn’t already a potentiality within the existing gene pool. So the question is whether N1H1 has a “feature” that makes it different, and if this feature wasn’t already a regressive feature of the genes. Often viruses are dangerous not because they have special features, but simply because they are chemically a bit different and unknown to our immune systems.
“Yes, I am a fan of the Discovery Institute, regardless of whether they prove that design exists in nature. They certainly are good at poking holes in the overinflated claims of evolutionists.”
Ummm… care to name some of these devastating critiques of theirs? Please cite the relevant peer reviewed literature.
You are of course attacking a strawman in your arguments against ‘gradualism’. No scientist since (and including) Darwin has thought that all life evolved at a perfectly uniform rate throughout the entire history of its existence on our planet. There have of course been periods where evolutionary change occurs much faster than others, radiations after exinction events would be a prime example. You also severely misunderstand how speciation is thought to occur. It begins when a group of organisms becomes geographically isolated from its ancestral species. The smaller gene pool is then much easier to influence. As a result what you usually get are more significant changes emerging in smaller colonies that have been genetically isolated from the main population. So in this sense evolutionary change can occur quite rapidly, and when/if the new species encounters the original one the differences between them can be considerable.
You also appear to misunderstand the difference between phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is itself a form of gradualism, Gould and Eldredge most certainly were not advocating any form of saltation theory or notions of “hopeful monsters.” You are simply terribly confused about the basics.
The most important question to ask about the fossil record
is: are there fossils that provide links between higher taxonomic groups? The answer here is a resounding ‘YES!’ In recent years the fossil record has become wonderfully complete. We have discovered lots of magnificient transitional fossils in many lineages where anti-evolutionists insisted they would never be found, and in doing so provided powerful evidence for common descent.
There is a remarkable convergence among phylogenies determined by different methods. That is not to say that there aren’t anomalies, but pointing to such instances as evidence against common descent is no more convincing than YECs presenting erroneous radiometric dating results as evidence against its validity. When looked at on the whole, both of these methods yield results that for the most part agree and provide more than enough evidence for their reliability.
John1453,
I’m not arguing that one necessarily uses science to detect God. Though if Greg wants examples I would point to evidence for design, evidence for purpose, and evidence for the fine tuning of the universe, all of which can be and are investigated using “science”.
These examples are inconclusive. Nothing here, as I said previously, necessitates a belief in God as the only logical conclusion, and certainly nothing requires this God be the Christian God.
Any jumps you make using science are only possible because of your faith in Christian theism. And that always comes back to an issue of faith.
I think you are evading having a real discussion with a biologist, if he wanted to have it with you. You repeatedly make broad assertions that evolution has no evidence, as if your stern pronouncements are sufficient to make it so, then you refuse to engage with any evidence that may be brought to the table. I know you are just being a good lawyer, but if you can say there is no evidence in this blog on compromise, you can certainly tell that to a biologist.
But if you wish to discuss compromise, your posts are a good example of them. I said this earlier, but any model where either science or theology can influence each other compromises at least one, if not both.
You’ve demonstrated a cold reliance to your theology by letting it set the ground rules when you look at scientific issues. Romans 1:20 is a perfect example of this. How a given science stands up next to one’s theology is no indication of that science’s truthfulness. It may just as well be an indication that your theology is weak.
Science and theology are very limited in what they can tell each other. You have gone beyond those limitations and compromised science with your theology. All of your conclusions and pronouncements are cast into doubt now.
Tom: “You also severely misunderstand how speciation is thought to occur. It begins when a group of organisms becomes geographically isolated from its ancestral species. The smaller gene pool is then much easier to influence. As a result what you usually get are more significant changes emerging in smaller colonies that have been genetically isolated from the main population. So in this sense evolutionary change can occur quite rapidly”
A small population might be “easier to influence” as you put it, but it has a very small pool of mutations from which to draw upon.
Since the current human population is probably 500,000 times as large as it was in some hypothetical period when we were splitting off from apes, we should be able to see in our lifetimes the equivalent of 1.5 million years worth of random mutations cropping up. But I haven’t heard any reports of people being born with new useful features. Nobody with extra limbs or poisonous fangs, or the beginnings of feathers for some future flighted humans.
Actually John genetics works the complete opposite way of what you just stated and if you had read the earlier posts you would have read that. Mutations are more likely to occur and survive in small populations of geographically isolated individuals. Since the human population is large and mobile we are less likely to see mutations. This is one of the reasons there are laws against inbreeding (which interestingly enough is in my opinion another argument for design in evolution – typically mutations are not advantageous to survival, and the concept that there were so many that were in an unguided process seems unlikely). When people inbreed (think royal families) it increases the likelihood of genetic mutations because they artificially limit their breeding population and recessive genetic mutations thrive.
FYI, about posts 249, 250, and 251, sorry for the duplicated comments. I had tried to submit the first post and my computer told me that the server wasn’t responding, so closed the browser, re-opened it and tried to re-create the first post while also rushing to get to work. The 2nd and 3rd posts appeared right away, and then the first one that I thought didn’t take appeared hours later!
~Kaz
“Mutations are more likely to occur and survive in small populations of geographically isolated individuals.”
Survive – granted. But occur? Why?
“This is one of the reasons there are laws against inbreeding”
Inbreeding increases the chance that recessive genes will become active. But it doesn’t induce any creative force to suddenly make you grow feathers or sprout a dorsal fin. That’s going to require luck, and luck requires you to roll the dice as many times as possible. You can’t roll the dice many times in a small population.
Furthermore, a small population limits the variety in the gene pool. How are you going to have hope that the gene you need to evolve is going to pop up if the whole population has homogeneous genes? Why wouldn’t a foreigner coming into the gene pool be just the stimulous needed to prompt the next wave of evolution?
What you’re saying makes no sense to me.
re Michael T’s post 287 and Greg’s posts 291, etc.
Sigh. As I’ve indicated several times the lead post is not directly about the scientific evidence for evolution, it is primarily about whether it is a compromise for a Christian to believe in evolution. In that vein I’ve indicated several times I’m not going to take any bait that heads in the direction of a discussion focussed primarily on the evidence for evolution and thus hijacks the original intent of this thread. Consequently, it is not that I am (as alleged) evading a discussion with evolutionists, nor am I engaging in pointless or irrelevant blathering. The basis of evolution as it is currently researched, taught and used, etc. is an important one and one that is directly relevant to the thread. It’s not merely a matter of fun (I eschew using Greg’s phrase, which at least in my neck of the woods, is both crude and lewd).
As to philosophy, it seems that MT is quite steamed up about it, though a little reflection and familiarity with the relevant and extant literature reveals that his steam is nought but a tempest in a teapot.
First, philosophy is not some esoteric discipline with no relevance to real life. Philosophy is about thinking, and given that humans are thinking beings everything we do is grounded in philosophy. It is not possible to escape philosophy, nor possible to define science exclusive of philosophy. If MT wants to do so, he can go ahead, but it would be like standing on the ocean shore and commanding the tide not to come in.
Second, it is notoriously difficult to define science, so much so that some discuss the existence of various sciences rather than one overarching “science”. Because we are both philosophical and social beings, and because language is inherently and inescapably contextual, the definition and scoping of any human activity is a social, linguistic and philosophical activity. If the practitioners of evolutionary biology believe that evolutionary science entails randomness, nondirection, and materialism, and act on that basis, then that is a de facto definition of what science is in that field. For MT to deem evolutionary science not to be so is like MT declaring that the earth is cubical in shape. He can say it, and get passionate and upset about it, but it does not make it so.
Third, it has nothing to do with using science to prove the existence of God (and for Greg’s enlightenment, note that I never claimed the evidences I referred to were “proofs”, conclusive or otherwise, of God’s existence). It is about excluding God either a priori or as a result of the investigation. The aim of the evolutionary research project was originally and remains to provide a materialist explanation for nature that is sufficient apart from any supernatural being and thus able to excludes God. It is not for nothing that atheist’s have claimed that evolution makes it possible for them to be “fulfilled”.
regards,
#John
John:
1) Does it compromise a Christian, to believe in Evolution? I believe it does not. We are asked to “observe” the wonderfulness of GOd’s creation; and even to deduce from it, the greatness – and nature – of God.
2) Is Evolution a fully scientific fact? Probably. Though for purposes of discussion, let’s recall that it is more typically, in science, called the “theory” of evolution; thus the standards for it are higher than blind faith; but not quite as high as full, scientifically proven facts.
3) We are not therefore being “schizophrenic” and inconsistent here in our demand for facts. But Christians are. One moment they ask for firmly proven things … and then say they themselves however don’t have to produce any facts, but only have “faith.”
Faith by the way, John, was apparently defined by Paul – and is commonly thought by Christians – to be belief without any physical evidence; “things not seen.” In that definition, it is very significantly different – the opposite of – asking for evidence.
4) John misinterprets Romans 1.20; HE gets the wrong way around. There are indeed, many ways to read the BIble; consider this new reading.
5) The only thing we really need to prove, here, is not a totally different organism – a bird from a germ say – but the evolution of a significantly different organism. And those are all around.
N1H1 might be a bad choice to be sure; but consider widespread concern over the likelihood of another, very, very different organism … one so different, that our vaccines would not cover it, unless we are careful.
That concern is real; and the consequences of failure to to see that, is the height of irresponsiblity; millions of lives are at risk, if we do not believe that a significantly different organism can appear any day. So your remarks here are highly irresponsible.
6) CLearly, moreover, it does not take an infinite universe to see evolution; we see that even in a rather small, not infinite universe, genetic drift etc. can produce significantly different organisms. Indeed, merely a biblical, “Great” universe, would be enough to do that, presumably.
7) Do you claim that the Universe really seem to say “God” made it? Then a) why so much unintelligent, bad, fatal design in it? So many things that are fatal to man, even on this earth? And b) why have so many other cultures read some other God into it?
When c) I look at the sky, I don’t see “Eat at God’s Cafe” spelled out in stars; do you have the photos that prove otherwise?
8) Creationists indeed, are strikingly uninformed; and typically DO ignore obvious examples, like the flu.
9) Let us therefore ask Christians, to follow their God; and be honest; do not “bear false witness.” Learn the last virtue that Christians ever learn: learn to be intellectually honest; and actually fair to the evidence. Do not be ” sophists.”
“Come, let us reason together.”
I also disagree that science and theology are very limited in what they can tell each other. They can, and should, tell each other a lot. To keep them on parallel tracks is to buy into several (compromising and incorrect) assumptions respecting the two.
Theistic evolution is somewhat of a misnomer because there is no real intersection of the two, such that “theistic” could be an adjective describing a particular approach to evolution. From the human side of looking at evolution, there is no difference at all in the approach of theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists. The only difference between the two is that the theists tack on a variety of unfounded speculations about how God might be undetectably involved in evolution. That is, the theistic evolutionist produce a number of entertaining but unelightening invisible gardener stories.
The syllogism behing theistic evolution looks like this:
1. One cannot detect God in evolution.
2. The Bible says nothing about evolution.
(a.k.a. “science and God don’t mix”)
3. a theistic evolutionist believes in God
4. a theistic evolutionist believes in evolution
from 3 & 4 we derive
5. God used evolution to produce nature as we see it
from 5 & 1 we get
6. God’s hand in evolution is invisible
adding
7. quantum physics currently sets limits for what we can detect (e.g., we cannot know both the location and vector of a subatomic particle)
from 7 and 6 we derive
8. God’s hand in evolution could be occurring at the quantum level where we can’t detect it.
Alternately, we could substitute
7A. there exists a vitality principle / relation that we have not yet discovered.
from 6 and 7A we derive
8A. the vitality principle has caused life to unfold and develop over time into what we see.
There also exist other substitutes for 7 and 7A, in all of which there is no interaction of significance between evolution and a belief in God. Rather thin gruel for the feeding of a Christian life.
****
I note that it is admitted in this thread that a belief in evolution is not “proved” but is the result of believing that several lines of “converging” evidence allegedly point in the direction of, and thus support, evolution. True, quite true. Which is why I remain comfortable in saying that it has not been proved in the manner of physical phenomena such as gravity, the speed of light, nuclear fission, etc.
Moreover, the lines of evidence are open to other explanations. Evolution is merely one explanation that is partially consistent with the evidence. The fact that an explanation is consistent with the evidence does not make the explanation true at all, only possibly true. Of course one could illegitimately persuade oneself or others of its truth by engaging in various logical fallacies like affirming the consequent, but let’s leave that aside as an unproductive approach.
regards,
#John
#John,
Everything you’ve said about evolution also applies to gravity (or any other scientific theory, for that matter):
It’s not mentioned in the Bible; God’s hand in it is not detectable; Theistic gravitationists do not differ from atheistic gravitationists with respect to the science, etc, etc.
You could also argue that gravitation was an attempt to remove God from celestial mechanics – certainly many Christians thought this back in the day.
Do also think that the theory of gravitation is also “thin gruel” for the Christian life? If no, why not? Does gravitation remove God from the picture? If no, why not?
You’re also wrong about gravitation as having been “proved.” Gravity has been described, yes- but what actually causes gravity is an open area of research in physics. Basically we have no idea how objects at a distance exert force on each other through space/time.
Aside from all that, it’s pretty clear that you’ve made up your mind on these things, despite several folks attempting to show the logical inconsistencies of your approach. You’ve also said that the evidence for evolution is open to other interpretations (but only provided an ad hoc response that, as far as I can see, imagines God as a sort of lazy programmer who doesn’t clean up his code when he cuts and pastes for various separate creations). While I agree this is a formal possibility, I think it more likely that God ordained and sustained a process that appears to us as natural – just like for gravity.
John & MikeT:
OK. In defense of Mike T, let’s use some logic and semantics here.
Mutations, new organisms, are more like to occur and survive in small populations, as noted above. John objected that they do not occur more often … while conceding however, that they were more likely to “survive.”
Did the phrase John objects to, SAY that they would “occur” more often? The phrase, more properly, was “Occur AND survive.” Which could mean after all, a) NOT that mutations etc. occur more often, but that b) those mutations that do occur, are more likely to survive.
As indeed they do.
So that we do not really, even need such a large universe at all, to get evolution.
Thus evolution is plausible, conforming to “Reason”ing together; and a Christian can believe in it, without compromising his or her religious beliefs.