Ch. 6: Evolution and ID

[Emery]

Alright, we're on to chapter 6. Our focus is not on the scientific debate, but on the implications if either side is right. If evolution is true, does that undermine Christianity? Or can the two co-exist? And if ID is right, for the reasons the authors give, what does that say about the scientific method? Should that undermine our trust in all other scientific fields, whether we're trusting the science behind medicine or anti-lock brakes?

[marc]

As to whether Christianity and evolution can co-exist, Google Ken Miller. I'd post a link but the iPhone doesn't have copy/paste yet. Miller is an evolutionary biologist and a devout Catholic, I'm neither so I defer to people like him for answering this question. In a word I'd say yes they can and do for many people.

[Penguin]

Thanks for the Podcast, Emery (and Scott!)! It was cool to hear my questions and the discussion that came out of them.

Alright, we're on to chapter 6. Our focus is not on the scientific debate, but on the implications if either side is right. If evolution is true, does that undermine Christianity? Or can the two co-exist?

For Christianity in general, I'd say not. However, I think that evolution along with a few other scientific disciplines do undermine Biblical literalism, which seems to be the approach of a decent number of churches and individual Christians.

And if ID is right, for the reasons the authors give, what does that say about the scientific method? Should that undermine our trust in all other scientific fields, whether we're trusting the science behind medicine or anti-lock brakes?

It depends. If we take as given that the Genesis account is literally correct, then there are a number of possibilities; it doesn't necessarily have to be the case that evolutionary biologists are all wilful liars or moral degenerates who have deluded themselves. They could be honest people who have been misled, presumably either by God Himself (He put all those dinosaur fossils there to test our faith!) or by Satan (he put all those dinosaur fossils there to lead us away from God!).

In that case, we could take the position that the scientific method works... when supernatural entities leave things alone. However, I don't see any reason to say that those entities messed with the evidence for evolution and not for anything else... so maybe that still renders the scientific method suspect.

[StillSearching]

I'd like to offer some of my thoughts toward Pseudonym's question regarding "image of God" and your subsequent answers.

Biblical scholars have often pondered the use of the word "us" in Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make man in our own image"), and other plural references to God in the scripture. I have come to wonder if this refers to the ubiquitous "positive" and "negative" aspects of the universe. I put those two words in quotes because I want to be careful to separate them from their usual connotations of "positive=good" and "negative=bad." I'm talking more from the standpoint of, say, magnetism. Both are necessary aspects of our universe. They compete against each other, and yet sustain and enhance each other. Destruction is necessary for creation. Evil is necessary for good. Woman is necessary for man. I realize I'm engaging, somewhat, in stream of consciousness here, but I hope I'm expressing my thoughts clear enough to get my point across.

The reason this makes sense to me is that it helps me to reconcile the idea of God with the existence of evil/suffering. I cannot accept, from either a logical or emotional perspective, the belief that God is purely good because of the existence of evil and suffering. Also, I have trouble with the concepts of "good" and "evil" since categorizing persons, things and events into one of the two seems to me to be an entirely subjective exercise. I can, however, wrap my head around a concept of God that portrays him as an all-inclusive and uniting "force" that somehow binds everything together and makes it all work. I don't necessarily find that to be a comforting concept, but it makes more sense to me than the traditional Christian image of God as the white-bearded, kindly old man in the sky who "is love."

So, to me, when I read that passage from Genesis, I think of man & woman, positive and negative, creative and destructive, light and dark, etc.

Sorry if this is ambiguous and rambling but I didn't have much time to write it so I just kinda barfed it out as best I could.

[tonyenglish7]

I just listened to the show on Evolution and it was really interesting to hear Emery's view and to hear Scott respond. I wish I could have participated but I know the show would have taken a whole different direction and so in a way, I am glad I was sitting out to hear their views without the need to interrupt. I think I would like to respond first with the things for which I agree.

First, the way the authors try and explain why evolutions are wrong is because they have already determined that they are wrong. But I agree, it doesn't make any sense to discuss "why" someone is wrong until you show "that" they are wrong. I could argue with the cop at my door that it was not my son killed in the car crash down the street. The cop would say, sir, I understand this is hard to accept but we found his body and car wrapped around a tree. But if I say, officer, my son is here at home and here he is, the evidence trumps my reasons to want to disbelieve the cop. So readers have to understand the authors believe they have shown the evidence "that" evolution is wrong so they start to discuss "why" they are wrong. But I don't think the one single chapter is sufficient to disprove evolution.

I agree that the ID movement is messed up in a lot of ways. First, there are the young earther's who mistake the Genesis account for a scientific account of creation. It is a myth that was written in the genre of such, yet it happens to overlap with the reality of what happened only on a much lower resolution of accuracy. It was meant to be the true creation myth as opposed to the pagan myths of the time. Moses, who had studied all the myths in Egypt was responding to them with the Genesis account. What was key in that account was that the universe had a beginning (and a Beginner), that the earth’s development happened in stages, (coinciding with realty), and that God finally rested after intervening during the process. It is the only religious text that has these features and is unique in this regard.

The Young Earthers are an embarrassment to the Christian Church as they hold on to beliefs that are completely against the record of nature. We see the heavens as a video tape of the development of the universe. The farther we look out in space the farther back in time we are seeing. Young Earthers will say, "Nobody was there so how do you know?" We, we have a video record of it. We can watch the whole thing happen right up to about 100K years from the big bang. Sometimes young earthers will use a stupid analogy saying that God made Adam at a mature age and he did the same thing with the universe. But that analogy would only work if along with making Adam fully mature, he provided a video tape of his childhood, left scars on his body from falling off his bike and a memory of all of these events. The evidence for the universe being almost 14 Billion years old is so overwhelming and so detailed from so many perspectives that only a fool would claim the universe is young. Or, God is tricking us all, and that is foolishness.

But because of this, and so many other things that Christians have done and believed and pushed for, the idea of yet more Christians debating evolution seems redundant. I fully understand that. And, I understand Emery's complaint about ID proponents not providing an alternative model. This is so true. All they do is play defense which doesn't work because the premise of science is that when we don't understand, we know there is a materialistic explanation so there is no reason to abandon a bad theory for no theory. If evolution had a competing materialistic theory, I promise you, the good skeptics that are troubled with the view now, would be out there blazing a trail and exposing the weakness of evolution. An alternative theory that allows of God tinkering with DNA is not going to ever be accepted by the scientific community. But right now, there is no other conceivable theory so it is all or nothing for the materialist and for the scientist. Evolution is being treated as the procuring cause of all life and is considered a fact.

At the same time, just like religious people have been wrong, so has the scientific community. Sometimes widely accepted theories are later abandoned for better, more accurate theories. But just suppose for a minute that something intelligent did tinker with the dna of species and introduce new life in stages over time. How would that be proven? Evolution would still be considered the best theory and would not be overthrown just because some intelligent being changed DNA along the way! What method would we use to discover this fact? A very close skeptical look at the evidence would be needed. This is just not going to happen in this day an age. But I predict, as time goes on, maybe 200 years from now, some bold high end scientist will decide to study the evidence at a very detailed level with appropriate skepticism and will conclude that intelligence did tinker with the software. And indeed, this scientist will make a name for himself.

So, The ID movement needs to first all get on the same page with the age of the universe and not fear the facts. Second, they need to work on a model that makes testable predictions with ways to adjust for new data. There are a bunch of ways this could be done in Biology, Genetics and Astrophysics. And someday it will.

Next, the discussion regarding theistic evolution was troubling to me. Remember, the theory of evolution maintains that life came about by random chance, without guidance and without intelligence. That the small incremental changes that occurred were also randomly driven by chance and by the random events of the physical surroundings that were also driven by chance. The resulting life forms are a combination of jillions of previous chance events that combined to create the diversity of life and balance that we find today as a moving snap shot of random processes on the move to whatever random direction they find themselves. This is the basis for materialism and is taught to every good materials child and disciple.

Emery and Scott said that a God that could cause all of this at the big bang would be a greater God then one the created as he went. And in one sense I see their point. At least philosophically, God could have known the outcome of an infinite number of random universes before he caused them and in causing this one, he could have simply choose this one to actuate as opposed to the other ones. In this sense, the random events that caused us would be divinely inspired. The only problem with this view is that the physical record doesn't show that, and the biblical record records stages of God "working".

The momentum for evolution is so overwhelming that I understand that to argue with materialist on the point of evolution is like playing with fire in a firecracker factory. There is no way to win because of the history of Christians being stupid and the seeming consensus of all the scientists that evolution is a fact. So, for me to start making a case as to why I think evolution is not the procuring cause of life, is to make myself out to be a complete idiot. I fully empathize with the attitude and the looks I get when making my case. I am not ignorant of the facts that materialist use to "prove" evolution and they are not idiots for believing evolution based upon what is known.

But let me start by saying what I believe and what most ID proponents believe. Obviously, God created the cosmos and after the universe was at the correct age and size (elements needed were in place by cycles of supernova processes), the earth was positioned in a place with all the right features to support life. (both the universe and the earth needed to be remarkably fine tuned to allow for life). The early earth rapidly was covered with life. Just within a few hundred million years of cooling to a solid, the earth was covered with bacteria. This was used to help create oxygen. But the earth was eventually struck by a huge asteroid that killed off all the life on the earth. But again, life started and more oxidation occurred. And again, after a few hundred million years, all life was wiped out again. And the process started again. Comets and asteroids pelted the earth and water accumulated and oxygen was created.

Then more complicated life was introduced in stages over billions of years. Just like the myth in the bible described. And eventually, man was created. After this point, God rested. No more intervening. I know this sounds like silliness to the materialist but let’s look at the general evidence. And I know I will not convince anyone to change from materialism to Theism with this argument but maybe a few points will stick in their minds and they will start to consider the reality of it down the road as they hear more evidence.

There has been no theory that has explained how life could have arisen out of a pre-biotic soup. The more we learn about the early earth, the more unlikely it becomes. The fact that life had to have arisen several times, not just once, is lost in the general discussion. Astro-physists know this but very few people are taught this fact. Second, the fossil record doesn't show the prediction that Darwin made that the transitional forms would be there between species. Materialist claim that this is because the changes happened suddenly but they do not explain why? There are some rare cases that can be speculated but the abundance of transitional forms are simply not there. This is not some creationist story or angle, this is real. The theoretical evolutionist are admitting this and are looking for adjustments as to why this is the case. But the general public is unaware of this issue because it is just assumed that it will be solved somehow.

The very fact that species were added in stages is not enough to prove evolution. The fossil record would need to reflect the story in the same way the cosmos reflects the story of the universe. It simply is not there. There are more and more problems coming up as more fossils are found. What are at one time deemed “transitional” are quietly swept under the table when species and traits that were thought to be descendants are discovered prior to or contemporizes of these so called transitional forms.

Here are a few facts. Humans have not shown to be on earth beyond about 70k years ago. This is nothing in evolutionary terms. Genetically, all humans have been shown to be related to the same singular women. Humans are not related to Neanderthals as was once thought. It is speculated that we are related to some creature way back but not even close. This has been proven lately using genetics as well. The fossil record shows mass extinctions. For example 6-8 million years ago, the earth was covered with 100's of varieties of monkeys and apes. It quite literally was the planet of the apes. There were even apes that walked upright on two feet. Knuckle walkers came later. The number of physical changes that have to take place for a species to go from walking on four legs to two is simply amazing, it is a change in the hips the back bone the feet, the knees the neck the skull etc... It goes on and on. For all of these changes to occur in just a few million years is not understood at this time.

It is clear that natural selection occurred and is occurring. People call this evolution and I understand how the human mind extrapolates this out to the actual cause of all life. But it simply doesn't play out. It is fair to say that the design of species has a feature that allows for adaptation. This is a feature that an intelligence would include. But when you look at a species that has adapted to an extreme environment, the species loses some features that it needs and it loses the ability to adapt back. For instance. Dogs can be breed from wild dogs to any breed. But you cannot take a beagle and breed it back to a wild dog. There seems to be a continuum that species can adapt to, but no further.

The irreducible complexity of Behe is a huge challenge. The early evolutionist didn't realize the complexity of the cell and of the processes that go on there. There are a ton of books now on this subject and it is interesting to read about the debate. The things you have to accept to embrace evolution are amazing, but there is no other choice for the materialist so they do. There are writers that are worth reading. William Dembski and Phillip Johnson are the most famous in this regard. Sometimes the minority position is the right one. But the issue brought up in the book about how feathers can evolve from scales is interesting. Both are useless in between each other, yet this is what is accepted.

The DNA code not only is complex physically, but it has messages with meaning and language on top of the physical complexity. Moreover, like an architect, there are plans within plans with order and purpose. The multi layers of complexity that have to occur in order show an intelligence above the scene that is directing this project. Just explaining how an eyeball could evolve is tough, but when it is connected to a device with a liver, spine, blood stream, skin and each component has the blueprint for the whole device on board? It is just to wild to think this all happened by chance without direction.

I know I have not convinced anyone but I hope at least one person read this diatribe of mine....This subject can get really detailed and there are some many parts to it we have not even scratched the surface. But the truth is evolution is a theory that should be approached with more skepticism. The full acceptance of it is not justified by the evidence that is there. As more information comes in, either the materialist will look for a better theory or continue to simply trust that there must be an explanation for the "fact" of evolution cannot be overthrown.

[scomsjw]

Tony said:

Dogs can be breed from wild dogs to any breed. But you cannot take a beagle and breed it back to a wild dog. There seems to be a continuum that species can adapt to, but no further.

I'm not too sure about that. If we started selectively breeding beagles to try and get something like a wolf and we kept this up for some thousands of years, I think we would end up with something like a wolf. I don't understand why you don't think that would be possible.

Remember, the theory of evolution maintains that life came about by random chance, without guidance and without intelligence. That the small incremental changes that occurred were also randomly driven by chance and by the random events of the physical surroundings that were also driven by chance.

There is certainly a great deal of chance involved in evolution but that's not the whole story. You seem to be trusting an intuition you have about the limits of what random mutations can achieve. Your intuition might be letting you down. It's hard to intuit about things that happen over millions of years.

[micktravis]

As someone trained in the sciences (I'm not, however, a biologist) it's frustrated me for a long time that, for example, young earthers haven't been dismissed as either delusional or grossly ill-informed. So thank you, Tony, for acknowledging this and a few other issues that are, in my opinion, not worth arguing about because the truth regarding them is obvious.

I do object to your assertion that evolution maintains that life came about "by random chance." At best this is a simplistic view and it's not one held by any working biologist. Evolution consists of (among other things) random mutation and natural selection. This is why the creationist argument that a room full of monkeys couldn't come up with Hamlet doesn't work - nowhere in the analogy is anything selecting for "To be or not to be." It's a simple matter to google the results of some computer models that do select like this and learn that the number of iterations to arrive at Hamlet is disarmingly low.

Also, in the second most recent podcast I believe you referred to a growing consensus in the scientific community that TOE is full of problems sufficient to cast doubt on its veracity. I've heard this said many times, but only by creationists. Is there a source for this?

Finally, irreducible complexity is only a challenge in the minds of creationist scientists. No reputable scientist has even considered it for many years except to debunk the shopworn examples Behe trots out. The bacterial flagellum, still churning away on a thousand youtube videos, has been shown to be anything but irreducibly complex. Behe's specific claims regarding certain components of the flagella were known to be incorrect even prior to his publishing the paper.

I'll leave it to anyone looking for evidence of this to go to talk.origins, which provides links to the original articles. I would like to thank you, Tony, for being so good-natured during all of this. While I disagree with your position it is a real pleasure to hear it coming from someone who clearly wants to talk about the truth.

On the subject of talk.origins, I'll end with a question: Talk.origins is scrupulous about providing live links to creationist websites, both for general context and to direct responses to material on the site. I think this says a lot about how credible the site is. Can anyone give an example of a creationist website that does the same thing?

Wonderful podcast, guys. I look forward to each new episode.

[crazylegsmurphy]

EDIT: I'm moving my post into the general section because I really don't want to muddy up this post with my direct response to Tony. You can read my response here. I would rather address what Emery and Scott are talking about, but I wanted to make sure I addressed Tony.

The post can be found http://www.achristianandanatheist.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1554

[crazylegsmurphy]

Great Podcast!

I think things go a lot smoother and more controlled when it's Emery and Scott since they're really good at playing off each other.

There were a few things that I wanted to touch on in regards to the implications of evolution being right or wrong. Emery and Scott talked about how most scientists want to be the one who debunks common theories because that is where the "big time" is, and I have to agree. The point I think they may have missed is that as much as I hate to admit it, there may be some bias in the scientific community if you make it known what you're intentions are right off the bat. The film "Expelled" by Ben Stein tries to paint a picture of scientists getting fired and shunned because they mention ID (creationism), and while I don't think it's as extreme as that movie makes it out to be, I can see how it would be difficult for a scientist to get funding if their hypothesis was that they knew how to prove God existed.

They talk about Behe, but one thing they didn't mention however is how much that guy has made off all of his literature. I know friends that have his DVD's handed out to them for free, bought and paid for by the church so even bad science can lead to fame. I strongly believe however that the reason why there are major implications to accepting ID as truth is that it goes against what science is. Science by definition isn't about finding reasons why something has to be, but interpreting the evidence and seeing where that leads.

I think the main implication however is how it will shape the minds of children. If kids grow up with the idea that the answer to everything is God, then I personally think it takes a lot of the responsibility off of the human race to do anything to better our world. Why wouldn't I be able to put "Cause God did it" on a test for an answer if ID took hold? It's not technically wrong in that situation.

I also think that it would create a division in the school system that would confuse kids. Why are all these people saying this, and these people saying these people are wrong? Does it then become legit science to simply say, "Nope, that's stupid" without actually backing up that claim?

As Emery said...Science breaks down.

To address Scott's final comment. Would it not make sense that the church spend time sorting out what it thinks and bring it's followers up to speed before they go off attacking evolution?

Ha...I find it strange that God arranged the events that lead up to Scott sitting on his mute button the exact moment that he had a zinger that would turn Emery (and probably all of us) around!

[marc]

Hey Emery and Scott,

Thanks so much for taking my questions!! It was really bizarre to be listening and hearing "Marc asks" and know you were talking about me. I guess you've given me my 15 minutes

Emery, I hope you took my comment about you in court as the humor I meant it as, you're a really bright guy and if I needed one, I'd trust you (faith?!?) to represent me in court!! All your points are taken, it may not seem it since I get frustrated here but I doo see them and I do agree.

Thanks so much again, I really appreciate you guys giving so much of your time to doing this stuff.

[yjoeyh]

Tony,

Thanks for taking the time to include your thoughts on this week's topic. Your presence was missed, by me at least, this week. I hope you will be back next week.
There's some good information in your post. As usual, I will have to spend some time evaluating the validity of all the claims you made. You've given me a lot of homework!
Thanks!

[Richard]

Thanks for the nice podcast, Emery and Scott.
I still have a question for the Christian that accepts evolution. To me "Garden of Eden", original sin, a viable population of 2 people, humans living for 800+ years, can't make sense from an evolutionary perspective.
So, how does it impact your theology?

[Emery]

Hey everyone, thanks for the kind words. And Tony, thanks for the thoughtful post. I'm glad you recognize many of the problems with ID. If I were to believe in God, I would expect his creative process to be far more wonderful and unexpected than ID seems to allow him to be.

Look forward to talking to you about morality next week!

[StillSearching]

Thanks for the nice podcast, Emery and Scott.
I still have a question for the Christian that accepts evolution. To me "Garden of Eden", original sin, a viable population of 2 people, humans living for 800+ years, can't make sense from an evolutionary perspective.
So, how does it impact your theology?

Hardly at all if you view Genesis as allegory or myth.

[dunc289]

Can I just make a little observation on the "watch in the desert" analogy.

Watches, and other complex machines, (jumbo jets, computers, cars etc.) are NOT created by a single designer, but are in fact evolved by a series of different designers from simple origins over time, sometimes using techniques and technologies unrelated to the problem of telling the time. Gears and springs were around for thousands of years before even mechanical clocks, and the journey from clock to watch took about 3-400 years in europe.

Also, the need for watches arose out of environmental pressures, i.e. the need for people to manage the finite resource of time better, not from a sudden desire to have a portable timepiece capable of breaking up the day into ever decreasing chunks. I think the first western clocks in the middle ages arose from a need to tell people when to pray.

If we substitute evolutionary design for a sentient designer, the "watch in the desert" becomes an argument FOR evolution or at least many designers, standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. A watch designed by a perfect designer would show no lineage to earlier forms, would be unfathomable to any examination. God's watch would simply tell the time, there would be no recognisable mechanism we could discern.

Similarly, if god is only really interested in our everlasting souls, why go to all the trouble of creating a somewhat roomy universe of matter for our corporeal bodies to mechanically manifest souls in? 93 billion light years of space for a species which only requires a ball of rock 8000 miles wide seems like very poor design to me.

Just go straight to the perfect design of souls, in a spirit world.