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""
re D. Venema’s post #99
1. Evolution is significantly different from matters such as gravity because evolution is an alternate story of origins. In addition, other areas of science have been described and researched in ways that are falsifiable. Evolution is not falsifiable; indeed, it thrives on just so stories, ad hoc explanations, etc.
2. Venema’s assertion regarding the “proof” for gravity is not about proof but about explanation. Anyone can drop a pencil: there, you’ve just proved gravity. In any event, gravity has been described to a greater degree of confidence and accuracy than evolution. Examples of things that are better understood would include nuclear fission or fusion.
3. I’ve made up my mind not despite the evidence, but on the basis of evidence. I’m quite open to being convinced otherwise, it’s just that no one has yet been able to (convince me).
4. In reviewing this thread, I don’t find any examples of people showing the logical inconsistences of my approach. People have disagreed with me, yes, but not shown that I’m illogical or inconsistent or “logically inconsistent” (though that last phrase doesn’t have any conjoint meaning, perhaps its just meant to say “poor reasoning”).
5. On Paul Copan’s thread in this blogsite regarding design Adam A posted a Lewontin quote that I also have used before, and which bears posting on this thread as well:
“Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.”
regards,
#John
Here we have another problem that compromises Christianity:
In their rush to dismiss creationism, by frequently declaring evolution as an already done deal, some scientists have already based some of their so called ‘discoveries’ on a well known ruse, which went on for 40 years.
For those of you who don’t know the Piltdown man was a hailed as the great discovery of a missing link in 1912, by a scientist who put ape and human bones together. It was not until 1953 that the hoax was discovered.
Nowadays, after all their media hype, some of the same scientists that hailed Ardi and Ida, their most recent discoveries, as the ‘missing links’ are backing off as well, and saying they aren’t so sure, and much more study is needed to validate the missing link claim.
So, as Christians, why we are supposed to take these people seriously, who claim creationism is myth, when they can’t even validate their own claims?
Seems to me a case of the evolutionary pot calling the Christian kettle
black.
I’m sure you’ll enjoy watching these videos:
Richard Dawkins interviews creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)
Part 2/7
Part 3/7
Part 4/7
Part 5/7
Part 6/7
Part 7/7
I’m sure you’ll enjoy watching these videos:
Richard Dawkins interviews creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)
Part 2/7
Part 3/7
Part 4/7
Part 5/7
Part 6/7
Part 7/7
John 1453,
“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.”
Ahh logic games. Now you’ve entered my world.
Your syllogism is incomplete and as a result fails because it fails to explain why the theistic evolutionist believes in God and why they believe in evolution, both of which could defeat your the first step.
Step 1 is only right insofar as God is not SCIENTIFICALLY detectable in evolution, but since you’ve already said you don’t believe God is scientifically detectable regardless of origins this is irrelevant. Since you are not a naturalist I’m going to assume that you would agree that science isn’t the only way to know truth and that intuition, reason, and experience are also ways to know truth. I look at evolution and very much see the logical inference of design from the process. Thus it could be said that I believe that God is detectable in evolution, just not scientifically, thereby falsifying your first step.
Mike T:
Careful. I’m not sure John meant to SUPPORT Theistic Evolution. He merely describes it.
So ironically, the two of you might even agree. That indeed, the whole idea of a Theistic Evolution is false or contradictory, right from the very first premise.
John 1453,
Response to 296
“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”
Sooo the definition of science is now decided by majority vote??? Maybe we should do theology this way too. Not all practitioners of evolutionary biology would agree with the statement above. Most may, but not all. Just because naturalists want to define things a certain way to fit their agenda doesn’t make their definition true or even logical. As stated earlier the hypothesis that all that is real is the material is a hypothesis that can’t be proven by science or any other manner. It is simply the faith of the faithless.
I think you need to study more people who believe TE because I think you would find that not all of them arrive at their conclusion in the way you think they do and they certainly arrive at their conclusion in a different way then a naturalist does.
Renton,
I think there are a number of different types of approaches through which one comes to believe in a God creating through a process of evolution. Some may look similar to the atheistic approach and some may not. John paints with very broad strokes when he attack theistic evolutionists, but in some ways creates a straw man because many don’t necessarily come to the beliefs in the same manner in which he assumes. The point of my post was to simply point out other possibilities.
In the end game a more accurate description of my view may be “evolutionary intelligent design”. I believe that the evidence and process of the formation of the universe and formation of life on Earth leads to a logical inference of design. Now that isn’t science strictly speaking – it’s philosophy, but as I’ve pointed out the assumptions on the other side are also philosophy.
Attacking the premises of an argument is certainly one of the best ways to undermine it. Your point is fairly taken. However, the most vocal and prominent theistic evolutionists seem to be the ones that deny that God can be detected in evolution. But maybe I should just get out more.
If we don’t start with the atheist premises of materilism and undirectedness, where then does a theistic approach to science take us? particularly with respect to pieces of evidence that could support either common ancestry or common design, such as commonalities between the DNA of different organisms? For example Behe, who regularly attacks the Darwinist or neo-Darwinist models of evolution, still believes in common descent.
A side note on definitions. I wasn’t suggesting defining science by majority vote, but looking at it from a sociological or anthropological perspective, wherein science is what scientists do (as a group). It’s a looking at existing practice and what that practice tells us about the underlying philosophy at work (and also looking at over words from the scientists themselves) in order to derive at a definition that captures what they are doing. There’s as many ways to define science as there are ways to skin a (halloween black) cat.
regards,
#John
On a funny side note me and my friends back in high school used to have a running gag where we would talk about our exploits in skinning cats and the various methods we used to do it in front of people who were new to our group and what not. Kinda an initiation if you will. “So Bob, how’s the new Skinner 3500 working for you??”
John1453:
Behe as you say is certainly no friend of Darwinian evolution and I take it you would agree with his ideas about irreducible complexity. However, why do you think that he is so wrong about common descent? He essentially says that the evidence for human-chimp common ancestry couldn’t be any more compelling. I know you don’t want to get into a debate about the actual specifics regarding the evidence, but what makes you so confident that he is so right in one area (the inability of natural evolutionary mechanisms to produce complexity) and yet so wrong in another (common descent)?
John 1453,
I think maybe the question of this blog should be rephrased. Evolution as a word just carries so much baggage with it that it is almost impossible to have a fair discussion about it. What if the question were this, “Does accepting common descent compromise Christianity”??? As you’ve pointed out many vocal critics of naturalistic evolution still accept common descent.
Got a laugh outta your post 213, MT. Reminds me of what my college buddy and I used to call “Relative Anecdote Sobotage”, which was also an inside joke.
People at the (e.g.) cafeteria lunch table would be telling one anecdote after another, all with vague, relative connections to each other. You know, “I had a dog that . . . . fire hydrant . . .”, then the next person goes “we had a fire hydrant in front of our old house that exploded” then the next “our house was so old that . . .” Either my buddy or I would chime in with a story vaguely related to the last one that would then kill the conversation dead (sabotage). For example, “yeah, I had a dog, too. It had a bladder infection. [full stop]” Quite hilarious for those of us on the inside who’d then watch the uncomfortable reactions around the table. [yes, odd, but those of you curious to know what in my childhood led to this oddness and ultimately to becoming a lawyer (whereupon relatives of my mother asked her, “but how can your son be a lawyer? I thought he went to church?” But I digress) can flip over to the Halloween thread where I bare my soul]
BTW, Michael T., glad to see neither you nor I are getting too bent out of shape. I never had a position on evolution and compromise until I read CMP’s post (I never knew sin until I knew the law). The compromise position seemed reasonable, but no one was taking up that mantle, so I did. It’s helped me figure out where I stand and forced the rest of you to actually come up with some cogent thinking. Not that I’m convinced yet (either way).
I just finished a big trial / hearing. So I’ve (obviously) got some time on my hands. It was either post or finish reading “The Art of Using Expert Evidence”. Guess what I chose.
regards,
#John
Well I will be joining you in being a lawyer when I’m admitted to the Bar on Friday which means that this post could go on forever with long winded posts…….
Welcome to the bar, Michael. You know that misery loves company. What area of law are you going to be practicing in?
Further to the importance of discussing evolution and the possibility of compromise, I quote below from a post by David Klinghoeffer who has been participating in a bit of a road show with a new film about the Cambrian explosion:
“Monday and Tuesday were taken up by meetings with Jews and Christians — including rabbis, headmasters of Jewish high schools, and a very different group at the Lighthouse Church in Santa Monica. Held at a synagogue and at L.A. Museum of Tolerance, our meetings with the rabbis left me with a strong sense of breaking through in a way I hadn’t before with the Jewish audience. The speakers were again Berlinski and Wells, along with myself, representing three quite different approaches to the Darwin debate. I’d like to share with you my remarks later. We again took our three-way presentation on the road at the Lighthouse Church. Dr. Wells does a particularly effective and concise Powerpoint presentation on the basics of intelligent design.
One lesson I took away with me is that out there in the real world, the evolution debate matters to people for reasons that may not be quite the same as the reasons it matters to many of us who are involved with it professionally. For them, it’s not about the scientific issue per se or about academic freedom. It’s about their children.”
Last post for today. I’m a Beavers leader and have to go do my work among the impressionable 5 – 8 year olds of our fine country.
Wassup with the more than a dozen new votes for YEC? Did someone go to the local library and vote from each computer? Has no one read the 1,000+ post on the 6 views of evolution that was accomplished this spring/summer? Do YEC’s not know that CMP reads comic books and lets his kid dress up as a ghost and so should be avoided like the plague? Does Dennis Venema not have any friends that he can get to vote on this blog? Can he not make voting a requirement of passing his course? In case you’re wondering why I don’t get my friends to vote, I’m a lawyer. Married. With three kids. And I’m still finishing rebuilding the front porch that I started this past June when my father came out for the first time in 18 years to visit me and which may not be finished until Christmas but at least now the postman won’t fall through the rotting boards and my wife has finished giving me change orders except for the last one that now requires me to source out a custom cut sheet of tempered glass which I hope to get and install before she figures out something else to do differently though I do love her dearly and so on Christmas eve when I hope to have it finally completed I may just put a ribbon on it for her for Christmas this year and be done with it though on second thought that might turn me into a divorce statistic and a rereader of CMP’s fine post on remarriage. ’nuff said.
#John,
You just said, “I never had a position on evolution and compromise until I read CMP’s post (I never knew sin until I knew the law). The compromise position seemed reasonable, but no one was taking up that mantle, so I did. It’s helped me figure out where I stand and forced the rest of you to actually come up with some cogent thinking. Not that I’m convinced yet (either way).”
You have been arguing for days that you believed it was a compromise for a Christian to believe in evolution. Have stated it repeatedly. And now you are telling us that all of this time you have just been playing lawyer??!?? And that you still don’t know what you believe on the issue one way or the other??
Frankly, I’m disappointed and a bit shocked. Just how do you expect us to believe any stand you are taking from now on is what you truly believe?
Tom: “He essentially says that the evidence for human-chimp common ancestry couldn’t be any more compelling. I know you don’t want to get into a debate about the actual specifics regarding the evidence, but what makes you so confident that he is so right in one area (the inability of natural evolutionary mechanisms to produce complexity) and yet so wrong in another (common descent)?”
So what does he propose? Mini episodes of special creation?
If God is going thrust mini-creation into the stream of descent, how would you differentiate that situation scientifically from God simply creating a brand new creature, but reusing his existing pool of DNA material as a basis?
It sounds like Behe hasn’t thought through what he proposes. You can’t argue for irreducible complexity without calling into question common descent.
Renton: “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.”
To occur and survive, they first need the occur!
I granted that if humans suddenly started sprouted wings, that trait could better survive in a small community. My point was that there are no reports of humans sprouting feathers, or dorsal fins, or poisonous fangs. And that is with a population 500,000 times as big as it would have been in ages past. I granted that these feathers might not survive in the large gene pool, but my point was that they are not cropping up in the first place.
re post 221. I have not “just been playing lawyer”, nor have I been arguing simply for the sake of arguing, nor arguing about something that is moot. Though I poke fun at lawyers, I take what I do seriously, and I when I contribute here I think seriously about what I write. Compromise is a serious issue, and one which I have been treating seriously. I do not believe evolution is true, though I wouldn’t give up my faith even if it were. Modern evolution is, as I have demonstrated, inherently based on atheist premises and an intentional rejection of God. However, I in no way have a closed mind about science and evolution and am open to being convinced about evolution and to being convinced that theistic evolution is not a compromise. It is true that I have not had to think about the issue until CMP raised it, and it is true that I am still on the fence about it until I have more fully thought it through, but that does not mean that I don’t have leanings one way or can’t take a position on it. Mature people, people who have grown up beyond schoolyard forms of arguing and discussion, don’t have to fully or “truly” believe something or have to be fully commited to it and take a “stand” on it in order to discuss it and argue about it and think and learn. One should be passionate about many things, but one should be dispassionate about one’s arguments or else one erects or falls into unnecessary blind spots. It is incorrect and inappropriate to bind one’s “stance” so tightly to one’s arguments as cherylu does, and it is neither intentionally nor unintentionally offensive to argue as I have done. And if someone thinks my arguments are poor, or weak, let them point it out. No one should have an unwavering precommitment to only one, and only a certain, outcome at the outset of a discussion (well, except for faith in Jesus, but that’s a special case). And no, I’m not personally put off by what cherylu wrote (though it is an offensive approach to cast aspersions, i.e. the “playing lawyer” comment), but it seems useful to set forth my approach in case there are others who think or approach discussions as she appears to do.
And now I’ve finished my last work related call and do have to leave.
regards,
#John
# John,
Well, I guess I am just naive enough to figure that when someone on a Christian blog says they think or believe something and then argue the point for days that they really do believe what they say. It is one thing to become convinced of something else in a disucussion as it progresses, but I am sorry, to say that you believe something and then tell us later that your mind is not made up is something that just does not set well with me at all.
And that is what I call “‘playing lawyer”–arguing something as though you believe it when maybe you do not or are not sure of your position at all.
Why don’t we see lots of evolution today, even with lots of people around? Population size is not the only factor in evolution; environmental stress is as well.
We see less evolution, when the environment is not immediately eliminating those who do not fit the environment, by natural selection. In our kinder gentler, prosperous age, there is less stress.
John:
Of course, mutations must occur first, to survive later.
But You seemed to imply that Mike T was saying that there were more occurrences of mutation in a smaller population; which was not necessarily implied in the semantics of more mutations “occur and survive” in smaller environs.
Sigh, I had another call at work and am still here and now late.
cherlyu, the implication of your use of the word “christian” to modify “blog” is that it would be particularly unexpected for someone to lie or mislead others when posting to it, which further implies that some posters to this blog have. I have not said I believed in something that I do not actually believe in. The strength of my belief varies with the nature, number and quality of arguments (using that word loosely to refer to both evidences and the reasoning about the evidence) I have to support my belief. I can believe in something even with only one weak argument in its favour, though obviously it’s much easier to convince me that I’m wrong, and I’m likely not to be very passionate about my conclusion, or incredibly committed to the potential implications of the belief.
I also happen to believe that the Shroud of Turin may be Jesus’ burial cloth. But that belief is not strong enough for it to play a role in my reasons for believing in Jesus or for me to use it in apologetics arguments or for evangelism, or even for water cooler discussion. And that belief has been greatly weakened by the recently released results of yet another study. Moreover, I’m not greatly committed to that belief nor passionate about it and I would take less of a stand on it than I do about compromises to one’s faith. Does that mean I’m misleading when I argue in favour of it being Jesus’? No.
I spent 11 years of my life in university, 8 of those year round. One learns to argue differently, and better, there and not to get too hung up about one’s arguments and stances, or those of other people. Nevetheless, the university experience affects different people in different ways, and I’m not naive enough to believe that all people come out of it arguing like me, nor that people who didn’t go only argue in one way and never like me.
Arguing is not “playing lawyer”, and lawyering is about far far more than just arguing. Moreover no other profession has a standard of ethics and behaviour that is higher or more comprehensive than that of lawyers who (in most places) have to swear an oath to uphold them and abide by them both inside and outside the courtroom.
Finally, this is a blog. Blogs are a particular type of forum and it is not part of blogging to require full disclosure of one’s position before jumping in and making comments or participating in the discussion. That being said, I reiterate that I have not written anything that misrepresents what I believe.
If you think otherwise than what I’ve written above, which you seem to, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. That does not mean, however, that we can’t have fruitful discussion in the future.
regards,
#John
John: (regarding Behe)
“So what does he propose? Mini episodes of special creation?
If God is going thrust mini-creation into the stream of descent, how would you differentiate that situation scientifically from God simply creating a brand new creature, but reusing his existing pool of DNA material as a basis?
It sounds like Behe hasn’t thought through what he proposes. You can’t argue for irreducible complexity without calling into question common descent.”
I think most people would agree that Behe’s ideas are rather bizarre in many respects, but heh… that’s what he believes. He lays out several pieces of genomic evidence for human-chimp common ancestry in ‘The Edge of Evolution’ and then writes;
“It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.
That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.”
So he accepts universal common ancestry, but believes that as opposed to random mutations being the cause of variations, God instead had to somehow guide the process with precise, targeted mutations – specifically to produce humans after our divergence from our common ancestor with chimps.
Furthermore he writes;
“Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the incredibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the design for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not `turned on.’ In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time).”
To me, this is rather at odds with what he claims to believe elsewhere; why would God frontload the first cell with all this and then still have to provide targeted mutations? But this is what Behe tells us his opinions are.
Anyway, various scientists are not impressed by Behe’s claims. In The Making of the Fittest, Sean Carroll says;
“This is utter nonsense that disregards fundamentals of genetics. Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University has described this scenario as `an absolutely hopeless genetic fantasy of pre-formed genes waiting for the organisms that might need them to gradually appear.’ As we saw in chapter 5, the rule of DNA code is use it or lose it. The constant bombardment of mutation will erode the text of genes that are not used, as it has in icefish, yeast, humans, and virtually every other species. There is no mechanism for genes to be preserved while awaiting the need for them to arise.”
Almost everyone starts out with some sort of preconceived notion, otherwise we would be totally mindless, and prone to go back and forth between every different opinion we hear.
The best learning experience comes, in my opinion, when we are most willing to listen to both sides. and then contribute something new to the discussion, rather than merely trying to argue someone down. All that does is kill a good discussion for everyone else.
I think we have to honestly admit that we’re all guilty of that from time to time.
Just my own 2 1/12 cents for the day.
#John,
Maybe the thing is here that I thought when you spent days and many blog comments arguing a point that you were really convinced and didn’t just hold your belief weakly or to whatever degree you hold this particular belief.
To have you state after all of the time and energy you put into arguing for this position that you were not really convinced one way or the other, really took me by surprise. That and your comment that you decided to argue it because no one else was and it sounded reasonable. Usually, as far as I know, you have argued points that you have been convinced of. I just thought you came across as a whole lot more convinced than you obviously were.
If I have misunderstood you, I am sorry.
“Why don’t we see lots of evolution today, even with lots of people around? Population size is not the only factor in evolution; environmental stress is as well.”
No, the discussion was not “why don’t we see evolution today”, the discussion was “why don’t we see beneficial random mutations today”.
Nobody, not even hard core creationists have any problem whatsoever with natural selection. That’s not an issue.
The issue is always beneficial random mutations. Environmental stress has nothing to do with random mutations. The genes know zilch about the stress of the environment.
Tom,
My post @330 was not in response to your comment in @329, but a general observation about how this discussion has being going the last few comments preceding yours. If you notice the times you will see they crossed in the mail. Just so you know.
Hi John,
we do observe beneficial random mutations today: Lenski’s work with E Coli is one (well documented) example of many beneficial mutations; also, the nylonase enzyme example (bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon via a mutation); in humans, there is strong evidence for mutations in lactase allowing for adult milk consumption (mammals are lactose-intolerant as adults, humans are the exception, selected for since we are farmers with access to milk as adults), etc.
The evidence is there – this is just a quick sample.
Wow, guess I haven’t totally ‘evolved’ yet, since I’m lactose intolerant, but hopefully still human. 🙂
Dennis: Where is the evidence that humans universally were lactose intollerant? Does it rely on assuming what you wish to prove that we evolved from mammals? In any case, this would hardly be a case of evolution creating something brand new since mammals clearly have the genes for consuming milk.
As for nylonase enzyme, as I understand it, if this evolved from what it is proposed to have evolved from, it required 140 point mutations, and the odds of this happening in the 30 years proposed are 3 x 10^-35. Which raises the question of whether a bacteria already existed possessing a regressive ability to metabolise another similar substance that has not yet been established.
Which is why the challenge was expressed in terms of human beings (or at least creatures of some size). Firstly, abilities of a purely chemical nature are quite different to evolution of major structural features. Secondly, with bacteria you have trillions of them, and at least you get to roll the dice a lot. But with complex creatures you don’t get to roll the dice very much nor comparitively very often, especially since it is proposed that evolution only takes place in small communities. And there are plenty of isolated human communities, as well as for other mammals.
John,
I think the what Dennis was saying is that (most) humans have a gene that allows us to process lactose as adults. All other mammals do not have this gene.
I read somewhere that 1000 or 1500 years ago, humans were 90% lactose intolerant, 10% tolerant; and that those numbers have been reversed today. This says nothing about a beneficial mutation (though it would support the theory), but it is an interesting example of natural selection at work.
“I read somewhere that 1000 or 1500 years ago, humans were 90% lactose intolerant, 10% tolerant; and that those numbers have been reversed today. This says nothing about a beneficial mutation (though it would support the theory), but it is an interesting example of natural selection at work.”
Again, nobody disputes natural selection.
However… this would have to mean that large numbers of people in the last 1000 years were not surviving to child-bearing age because they couldn’t drink milk. That seems extremely unlikely to me. I think someone in history would mention some great famine where only milk drinkers survived.
I’ve been briefly in and then out of this comment thread over its course, and have read fewer than half the comments. But I got the idea early on that #John was open-minded, and not strongly committed one way or the other on the issues being discussed. For whatever its worth, #John did not misrepresent himself from my standpoint.
John,
Childhood deaths through the last 10+ centuries have been very high. And those deaths were typically from unknown causes. It is theorized that many of them were the result of lactose intolerance long before the phenomenon was understood. The number of childhood deaths is plenty high enough to account for the shift in lactose tolerance within our race.
Yes, I know that natural selection is not the issue. I offered the comment because I thought it was interesting, not to win some point.
Hi John,
The nylonase mutation arose through a frameshift mutation, not a series of point mutations. I can find the research paper for you if you wish.
Re: adult lactase: I don’t know quite what you mean about “evolved from mammals” – humans ARE mammals. Even creationists don’t dispute that (as far as I know). More to your point, the evidence from all other mammals suggests that adult intolerance is the wild-type state, yes.
As for the rest of your comment, you asked about beneficial mutations. Nylonase certainly is one, the Lenski expts give numerous examples, and the evidence strongly suggests that adult lactose tolerance is another. If you now want to argue that those types of mutations don’t accrue to “major changes” you’re moving the goal posts, it seems.
The easiest answer here is comparing whole genomes to each other: for example, humans and chimps. There you have it – those are the sum changes required for the differences in our biology (note: I said BIOLOGY). What we see is that very, very little difference between the genomes – yet these small changes, expressed through development, give us the biological differences we see. Is the level of change we see accessible through known evolutionary rates and mechanisms? Absolutely.
Wrong. The metabolism requires two enzymes, only one of which is frame shift. Both enzymes are required for metabolism. The other enzyme, 6-eminohexanoic-acid-cyclic-dimer hydrolase is apparently seemingly only the product of point mutations. Furthermore, even the first enzyme is not only the product of frame shift, but probably requires point mutations also. (See Okada 1983, and Ohno 1984).
When I said evolved from mammals, clearly I was talking about evolved from _other_ mammals.
And I never said anything about whether they were major. I only said that these kind of changes are very disputable for the reasons stated, unlike structural changes.
John,
Are you using the primary scientific literature or Wikipedia / other web sites? I fully admit I might be out of date on nylonase (such as the case in any area outside one’s narrow specialization) but I’d like to know where you are drawing your conclusions from.
Also, please define “structural” – how is a change in an enzyme not a “structural” change?
Also, what do you see in comparing the human and chimp genomes that you think mutation and natural selection cannot accomplish?
# John,
After I read Cliff’s comment # 40 just above, I went back and skimmed through this thread again. As I did, I do think more than I did before that I over reacted in what I said to you. I had forgotten that you did change your mind on the compromise issue mid stream through this conversation. I was thinking that you had taken the same stand on it all of the way through. Which for me would of spoken of a much stronger belief than what you probably had. So again, I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Maybe very long threads can easily bring about misunderstandings as it can be very easy to get people’s positions on things confused at times. At least it seems true for me at this point.
Cheryl,
Now don’t take this as me in any way disavowing everything I’ve written because I do believe and feel at least somewhat strongly (call it a 6.5/10) about my opinion on this issue. However, I personally sometimes engage in debate because for me it is a good method of learning about a topic and thereby solidifying my stance on that topic. I often take a position in a debate that I may not feel completely sure of to see what arguments others formulate against it. I then look for any flaws that may exist in their arguments and call them out on it and present evidence for my side. This back and forth is and incredibly efficient way to learn. You either end up walking away stronger in your stance and having a better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses, or even, in rare cases, studying further and changing your stance based on arguments you can’t refute. In addition regardless of how it affects your personal view you inevitably learn an incredible amount about both sides.
In other words what I’m saying is that I don’t think that debate is a bad thing, even if someone takes a side purely for the sake of playing devil’s advocate. The best law school class I had was with a former Bush administration official who co-wrote one of the memos regarding Geneva Convention rights for those captured in the War on Terror. That he was a Conservative was without question, but he would often take the side of whichever side was lacking support in class just to make the rest of us think and come up with better arguments.
First off: I was public school educated. My second year in Bible college a “Creation Scientist” came and for three days showed his theory. The first thing he would admit to was that it was just a theory. But, he said, “Well, thats all they (evolutionist) have: A theory.
I didn’t swallow EVERYTHING he said in those three days and I don’t think anybody there, or the man himself, did believe 100% of everything he said.
With that being said, I think that 90% of what he had to say was real. I don’t believe in evolution. I am ignorant (or faith’d) enough to believe God could have taken something out of nothing and made it seem as mature (old) as he wished.
I am very careful while watching the Science channel or the Discovery channel with the kids in the room. When they start blithering “Millions and millions of years….” I mute it, DVR the thing, and wait for the kids to go to bed.
I do remember this: I went to college in a little college in the burbs of Knoxville, TN. On the Sunday night the guy was doing his seminar, a Department Head from UTenn was sitting RIGHT beside me with three of his buddies.
He groaned through most of the “show.” At the end he stood up with a three ring binder with “Paleo Readings” written on the front. I imagine Paleo was for “Paleontology.” This guy came armed. He started blithering his stuff at the speaker and the speaker didn’t even flinch. He started talking scientific right along with that Professor and frustrated the guy to the point he and his friends, embarrassed, walked out of the auditorium.
IMHO, there are too many jumps in evolution. There are too many fake’d skeletons. There are too many huge questions to be asked and explained. On top of all of that, evolutionist change their mind about almost all of their story every generation.
Right now, I’ll stick with the way it was written, verbatim.
[…] ran across this post called “John Macarthur on the “Lie of Evolution.” It is at “Parchment and Pen” and I highly respect Michael, his blog and what […]
Dennis,
I think that for many people the idea of common ancestry is quite easy to grasp and understand. That we share a recent common ancestor with chimps, a slightly more distant one with gorillas, then slightly more distant with orangutans, then other primates, other mammals, reptiles… etc, is not a particularly challenging notion to imagine. The evidence for this is also not hard to examine and understand, not only the genetics but there are some very good fossils documenting many of the transitions involved.
However, I think that where non-specialists have problems is in understanding the evidence behind the claim that natural selection acting on random variation can produce real novelty and complexity. At rock bottom, it just seems difficult to imagine. And this I think is where the ID guys come in; they show all these fancy images of the complex inner workings of cells, and calculations of the odds of these things being produced by mutations and selection, and it sounds convincing. When you listen to Meyer give interviews about his new book it appears that what he is saying is that even if common ancestry is correct (I suspect he doesn’t think it is, but just doesn’t want to discuss it) his thesis is that the mechanisms behind it couldn’t have been purely naturalistic, they had to be somehow guided, with new injections of information along the way, for example in the Cambrian explosion.
Michael T,
Thanks. I have done similar things in the past when I have been probably 90-95% sure of something and really needed to solidify my stance. They have been things that have made a huge difference in the way I have believed about something regarding the Christian faith at a very practical level that would effect everything I thought and did from there on out. The biggest one I can think of was when I came out of the hypercharismatic movement a few years ago. I had to rethink a huge share of my beliefs at that time and with huge peer pressure not to. I was actually told, “Be careful or you might be blaspheming the Holy Spirit.” Needless to say, it was a very difficult time.
I guess what happened yesterday just seemed like something else to me and I think at least a good share of it was because I had forgotten that #John changed his mind part ways through the discussion. I was thinking that he started out with a belief and held the same one all the way through. So I was really shocked when he said he took it up withought having thought about it before and that he still didn’t know what he believed about it after seeming to for quite some time.
I do appreciate your fuller explanation of debate as a way of learning and solidifying what you believe. I find however, that for me, it is difficult to talk to people even online in any depth when I don’t know what they are really thinking or where they are coming from. It would throw me too many curves if someone were to eventually state that they don’t really believe what they have been arguing! I guess part of it is my age–I’m giving myself away!–and the type of church culture I have always been in. We figured when someone stated they believed something that they really did. So the whole “playing devil’s advocate” kind of thing is something that is hard for me to deal with I guess.
And to # John and all of you other lawyers, and soon to be lawyers out there, when I said “playing lawyer” I meant taking a side that you really didn’t believe in and arguing it as true anyway as lawyers sometimes do, (at least in my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong), when they are trying to defend someone that they really don’t believe is innocent for instance. And that is what it seemed to me happened. Although I now realize I misunderstood.
I hope all of this helps clear the air here.