Macroevolution is “Evolution Proper.” That is, Macroevolution is what we usually think of when we here the word “Evolution. As defined by the Microsoft Word Dictionary, Macroevolution is: “theorized large-scale evolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups.”
Hypothetical examples of this include the change needed to transform a fish to an amphibian, a rodent to a bat, and an ape to a human. I am restricted to giving hypothetical examples because no actual ones exist. At best, the evidence for Macroevolution is weak or lacking altogether. At worst, the evidence is totally against it.
But before moving into that evidence, I want to mention a couple of things about Macroevolution: Firstly, Macroevolution is an extrapolation of Microevolution. The theory is that if minor changes can occur over short periods of time, major changes can occur over long periods of time. In general, extrapolations are bad math and bad science. They start with the evidence, but then make speculations that go far beyond what can be tested by the evidence. Secondly, when Macroevolution was first theorized, this extrapolation was excusable. Back then, the fields of paleontology, microbiology, and genetics were largely unexplored. Scientists believed that, as they researched these new fields, the data they found would bear out their theory. But now, over 150 years later, this sort of extrapolation is totally out of place. Since that time, scientific exploration has uncovered data that not only undermines, but totally discredits the validity of Macroevolution as a science.
Here are just a few of the cases against Macroevolution:
Irreducible Complexity
In my last article, Let The Evidence Decide, I talked a little about Irreducible Complexity. I won’t repeat it all now, but I do want to add one note. As one of my examples of irreducibly complex systems, I mentioned the ATP Synthase Motor. What I neglected to mention at the time was that this little machine happens to be necessary for all life on earth. It can be found in all cells, and there is no way of converting ADP to ATP (sugar to energy) without it. To reiterate, this motor is an irreducibly complex system, that is, it must have arisen all at once or not at all. The ATP Synthase Motor, without which no life could exist on this planet, could not exist itself under the conditions of Macroevolution.
The Fossil Record
For over 150 years, paleontologists have been searching for what they call “transitional fossils.” After all, if evolution really happened, the fossil record should document the slow change from one kind of creature into another with lots of intermediate creatures in between. However, not one such “missing link” fossil has been uncovered in a century and a half of digging. In addition the geological column, which has been used for years as “proof” for the Theory of Evolution doesn’t even exist in its complete form. It is a composite of strata from all over the world arranged in the right order to fit the theory. But even if such a column did exist, would it really serve as hard proof for Macroevolution? Not at all. Think about it for a moment. The geological column displays simple life forms like shells at the bottom, followed by fish, then reptiles, birds, and rodents, with the larger mammals at the top. But isn’t this what we would expect from looking at the ecology of the world today? Where do shells live? At the bottom of the ocean! Without transitional fossils, the geological column (fragmented as it is) proves nothing.
Convergent Evolution
Macroevolution requires a phenomenon called “Convergent Evolution.” This is where the same organ must have evolved several different times in several different places. For example, insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats are all supposed to have evolved wings. They are on different branches of the Evolutionary Tree, so, even according to evolutionists, they could not have evolved from a common winged ancestor. Therefore, they must all have evolved the same appendage separately. Considering the complexity of the wing, it is improbable enough that a wing could have evolved even once. But to have arisen four different times in four different places is even more impossible.
Argument from Ignorance
In studying biology, Evolutionary scientists frequently make the assumption that if an organ appears useless, it is evidence for a chaotic, unintelligent evolutionary process. This assumption has spilled over into the medical field too. For many years, doctors viewed any organ in the body without a known function as a junk. They called them vestigial organs, “leftovers” from Evolution. The tonsils are a perfect example. Doctors used to remove the tonsils at the slightest infection because they were supposedly useless anyway. However, it is now known that the tonsils are a vital part of the immune system. The same thing happened with so called “junk” DNA. Once, considered trash left over from the evolutionary process, this DNA turns out to be critically important. Another example, scientists once called the retina of the human eye “badly engineered” because the blood vessels run in front of the light detecting element instead of behind it. What they did not know at the time was that this design protects the retina from exposure to ultraviolet rays. In short, if the light detecting element were in front of the blood vessels instead of behind them, we would all go blind. As you can see from these examples, the assumption that because something seems useless it must be evidence for a clumsy evolutionary process is a faulty one. This is an argument from ignorance, not from knowledge.
Embryos
Public school science textbooks usually include an embryo development chart in the chapter discussing evolution. This convenient little chart displays drawings of fish, frog, reptile, bird, pig, and human embryos side by side. The purpose is to compare the embryos (which look very similar in the sketches) and draw students to conclude that the similarity is due to evolution from a common ancestor. But for many years, these drawings have been publicly exposed as frauds. Ultrasound images now available of these embryos reveal the extent of this fraud. When compared at the same stage of development, the embryos look nothing alike. Apart from discrediting the Similarity Argument (which is internally inconsistent to begin with- see Convergent Evolution), this kind of fraud brings the entire Evolutionary Theory into question. If evolution were truly as well proven as scientists would like us to believe, why the need to resort to deception? And by the way, although this fraud is now public knowledge, the drawings are still used in public school teaching texts.
Chemical Evolution and the Miller-Urey Failure
Totally apart from these other problems, the biggest problem for Evolution has always been the beginning of life itself. How did dead matter suddenly give rise to living matter? Evolutionists have never been able either to repeat this phenomenon, or give a convincing scientific argument for how it could have occurred. The closest they have ever gotten is the Miller-Urey Experiment. This 50 year old experiment produced a few amino acids (the most basic of all the building blocks of life) and a lot of chemical junk. The experiment failed to generate any living matter. In all the repeat experiments that have been performed since then, nothing better than amino acids has ever been produced, not even a single protein. If educated scientists cannot create a single protein in a controlled laboratory setting, how are we to believe that random chance could give rise to a living cell (which is a thousand times more complex than a protein) in the violent atmosphere of the early earth? Such expectations exceed the bounds of scientific reason, verging on religious faith.
Wrapping up our examination of Macroevolution, it seems fair to say that there is little to no evidence to support this theory and a lot of problems stacked up against it. Given, I have not been able to cover every point for or against Macroevolution in this short article, but the picture I have presented is, I believe, characteristic of the whole. Thus far, the only factual evidence I have found to support Macroevolution is its connection to Microevolution. However, this connection is weak, based only on a extrapolation that has not been born out by successive research. So as it stands, Microevolution, which does not conflict with the Creationist Model, is an observable science. And Macroevolution, the antithesis of Creationism, remains a theory and nothing more.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
More Evidence Part I: Microevolution
While we are still on the topic of evidence, let’s take a look at some of the arguments Evolutionists use to support their theory. The evidence given for Evolution falls into two categories: Microevolution and Macroevolution.
Microevolution, as defined by the Microsoft Word Dictionary is: “limited change: minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time.”
Examples of this include the variation of beak-shapes Darwin observed in the finches on Galapagos, the size of horses, and the changes between wolves in the wild and domesticated dogs. The evidence for Microevolution is very strong- it has been well documented and we can see it at work today. This is real science.
So what does that mean? Has the scientific “fact” of Microevolution refuted the existence of God and the validity of Scripture? Not at all. Did you know that Microevolution is just another name for something referenced in Scripture? Genesis 1:20-26 speaks again and again of how God created all living creatures “according to their kinds.” A “kind” would have been on the order of a family or genus on the classification pyramid- a group that could interbreed and reproduce, with room for variation and speciation due to things like gene recombinations, environmental factors, and minor mutations. Notice the limits of Microevolution- “minor change within a species or small group of organisms.” So what modern scientists have termed “Microevolution” can also simply be called “variation within kinds.”
Far from refuting Creationism, Microevolution supports the Creationist Model just as well if not better than the Darwinist one. I say “if not better” because where as Darwinism grew out of the discovery of Microevolution, Creationism existed before Microevolution. The discovery only reaffirmed something stated in scripture all along.
Now let’s take a look at the second category of evidence.
Microevolution, as defined by the Microsoft Word Dictionary is: “limited change: minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time.”
Examples of this include the variation of beak-shapes Darwin observed in the finches on Galapagos, the size of horses, and the changes between wolves in the wild and domesticated dogs. The evidence for Microevolution is very strong- it has been well documented and we can see it at work today. This is real science.
So what does that mean? Has the scientific “fact” of Microevolution refuted the existence of God and the validity of Scripture? Not at all. Did you know that Microevolution is just another name for something referenced in Scripture? Genesis 1:20-26 speaks again and again of how God created all living creatures “according to their kinds.” A “kind” would have been on the order of a family or genus on the classification pyramid- a group that could interbreed and reproduce, with room for variation and speciation due to things like gene recombinations, environmental factors, and minor mutations. Notice the limits of Microevolution- “minor change within a species or small group of organisms.” So what modern scientists have termed “Microevolution” can also simply be called “variation within kinds.”
Far from refuting Creationism, Microevolution supports the Creationist Model just as well if not better than the Darwinist one. I say “if not better” because where as Darwinism grew out of the discovery of Microevolution, Creationism existed before Microevolution. The discovery only reaffirmed something stated in scripture all along.
Now let’s take a look at the second category of evidence.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Let the Evidence Decide
The following article is a response to some comments I received on my last blog post. An atheist gentleman who calls himself the “Human Ape” read my article on Theistic Evolution and took it as an opportunity to express his views the topic. His comments are still up, and you may read them if you like.
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Human Ape,
I was not aware I was entering an arena when I clicked the comment box this afternoon! That being said, I am very glad you decided to post your counter-arguments, so we can debate them openly.
I believe the essence of your argument was summed up in this excerpt:
“In science, an idea that is widely accepted is not necessarily true. However if that idea has tons of evidence, and if the evidence is undeniable, than yes of course, it is fair to say that idea is true…the scientific community now has enough evidence to call the basic facts of evolution the strongest facts of science.”
I certainly agree on your point that any scientific theory must be backed by the evidence to be considered valid. That is why I believe we must weigh the evidence both for and against Evolution to decide if it is worthy to be taught as fact. This topic is far broader than can be covered in a single blog article. In future I hope to discuss it in more detail. For right now, I will give as brief a response as I can, outlining only a few of the many devastating evidences against evolution. I will begin with Molecular Biology:
To tell the truth, I was amused to find you consider Molecular Biology the strongest area of evidence for evolution. This is because it is in Molecular Biology that evolution has been most discredited in recent years.
1. The First Living Cell?
When Darwin originally developed his theory, he believed that simple cells were just that- simple. He therefore assumed it would be possible for such a simple life form to rise by spontaneous means. But until you have a self-reproducing organism, the only naturalistic mechanism for its evolution is random chance (natural selection does not work on dead matter). The simplest bacteria has over 200 genes encoded in over 100,000 base locations. This amount of information cannot possibly arise from random chance (even given billions of years over billions of planets). And this simplest of microbes is only a parasite, unable to reproduce without using machinery from more complex cells.
2. Irreducible Complexity
It has been shown that many microbiological systems in living things are irreducibly complex. This means that there is no simpler system from which they could have evolved. All the pieces of the system have to be in place for the system to confer any survival benefit to the organism. Examples of irreducible complexity include:
-The bacterial flagellum
-The intercellular protein transport system
-Machinery for translating encoded DNA and constructing proteins from it
-The blood-clotting system protein cascade
-The ATP Synthase Motor
3. Evidence from DNA
Most of the evolutionary arguments from DNA are based on the assumption that if DNA sequences in different species are similar, that shows an ancestral relationship between the species. This ignores the possibility that the similarities are due to a common designer and not common descent. After all, two programs for different computer applications written by the same programmer are more likely than not to contain similar coding sequences.
But apart from this, the evidence from DNA analysis for evolution is not consistent. For example, the initial estimate of a 98% similarly between human and chimpanzee DNA was only based on gene sequences that could be matched up and measured by single base-pair substitutions. Other differences, such as insertions and deletions (which are completely different sequences between the organisms) were totally ignored. Since then, the estimates for similarity have been steadily decreasing, as more genetic information is included in the analysis. Other studies have compared individual proteins that were common to many species and listed the similarity percentage. However, as more protein genes are sequenced for different species, the evidence for ancestry has been inconsistent. One protein analysis suggested that we were more closely related to guinea pigs than to chimps. Finally, many of the evolutionary DNA analyses assume that human DNA is 95% junk material, and therefore, differences in this DNA record the evolutionary history of the species. But as our knowledge of Molecular Biology increases, more and more vital functions are being discovered for this supposedly useless DNA (examples include: gene suppression and RNA machine templates). Thus the premise of these analyses is called into serious question.
4. Genetic Entropy and the Decay of the Human Genome
Another assumption evolution makes is that beneficial mutations are common enough and harmful mutations are rare enough that natural selection can work to improve the species. In order for this to occur, the number of mutations in the functional (non-junk) DNA must be less than 1 per individual. But current studies of Micro-biology have shown that the actual mutation rate in human beings is over 100 per individual. Even if 95% of our DNA is junk, this would still yield about 5 new mutations per individual per generation. Furthermore, it has been shown that the vast majority of these mutations are near-neutral or harmful. This suggests that rather than improving, the Human genome is actually decaying over time. No amount of natural selection can stop this. Evidence for decay can also be found in every higher animal species. If evolution is biological change over time, than it seems to me that we are changing in the wrong direction.
Based on this evidence, I hope you can see that my objections to evolution are not based only on my religious faith. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support my conclusions. The points I have listed are only a few out of many factual and logical objections to the theory of evolution.
If you are interested in further study, allow me to recommend the following resources (which I have used as sources for my argument):
-The Edge of Evolution by Dr. Michael J. Behe
-Darwin’s Black Box also by Michael Behe
-Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. J.C. Sanford
-Unlocking the Mysteries of Life (this one is a video by Focus on the Family)
-Codes and Creation (a DVD from Creation Ministries International)
Again, thank you for commenting.
Respectfully yours,
Lightweaver
_____________________________________________________
To the rest of my readers: I hope this encourages you not to be afraid of the arguments raised against us by Evolutionists and others. The facts (twisted and suppressed as they are today) are in our favor. And science, real science, is an awesome testimony to the greatness of our creator.
Special thanks to my Mom (a mathematical statistician who studies science for a hobby) who helped me compile and organize the data for this article. You're amazing!
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Human Ape,
I was not aware I was entering an arena when I clicked the comment box this afternoon! That being said, I am very glad you decided to post your counter-arguments, so we can debate them openly.
I believe the essence of your argument was summed up in this excerpt:
“In science, an idea that is widely accepted is not necessarily true. However if that idea has tons of evidence, and if the evidence is undeniable, than yes of course, it is fair to say that idea is true…the scientific community now has enough evidence to call the basic facts of evolution the strongest facts of science.”
I certainly agree on your point that any scientific theory must be backed by the evidence to be considered valid. That is why I believe we must weigh the evidence both for and against Evolution to decide if it is worthy to be taught as fact. This topic is far broader than can be covered in a single blog article. In future I hope to discuss it in more detail. For right now, I will give as brief a response as I can, outlining only a few of the many devastating evidences against evolution. I will begin with Molecular Biology:
To tell the truth, I was amused to find you consider Molecular Biology the strongest area of evidence for evolution. This is because it is in Molecular Biology that evolution has been most discredited in recent years.
1. The First Living Cell?
When Darwin originally developed his theory, he believed that simple cells were just that- simple. He therefore assumed it would be possible for such a simple life form to rise by spontaneous means. But until you have a self-reproducing organism, the only naturalistic mechanism for its evolution is random chance (natural selection does not work on dead matter). The simplest bacteria has over 200 genes encoded in over 100,000 base locations. This amount of information cannot possibly arise from random chance (even given billions of years over billions of planets). And this simplest of microbes is only a parasite, unable to reproduce without using machinery from more complex cells.
2. Irreducible Complexity
It has been shown that many microbiological systems in living things are irreducibly complex. This means that there is no simpler system from which they could have evolved. All the pieces of the system have to be in place for the system to confer any survival benefit to the organism. Examples of irreducible complexity include:
-The bacterial flagellum
-The intercellular protein transport system
-Machinery for translating encoded DNA and constructing proteins from it
-The blood-clotting system protein cascade
-The ATP Synthase Motor
3. Evidence from DNA
Most of the evolutionary arguments from DNA are based on the assumption that if DNA sequences in different species are similar, that shows an ancestral relationship between the species. This ignores the possibility that the similarities are due to a common designer and not common descent. After all, two programs for different computer applications written by the same programmer are more likely than not to contain similar coding sequences.
But apart from this, the evidence from DNA analysis for evolution is not consistent. For example, the initial estimate of a 98% similarly between human and chimpanzee DNA was only based on gene sequences that could be matched up and measured by single base-pair substitutions. Other differences, such as insertions and deletions (which are completely different sequences between the organisms) were totally ignored. Since then, the estimates for similarity have been steadily decreasing, as more genetic information is included in the analysis. Other studies have compared individual proteins that were common to many species and listed the similarity percentage. However, as more protein genes are sequenced for different species, the evidence for ancestry has been inconsistent. One protein analysis suggested that we were more closely related to guinea pigs than to chimps. Finally, many of the evolutionary DNA analyses assume that human DNA is 95% junk material, and therefore, differences in this DNA record the evolutionary history of the species. But as our knowledge of Molecular Biology increases, more and more vital functions are being discovered for this supposedly useless DNA (examples include: gene suppression and RNA machine templates). Thus the premise of these analyses is called into serious question.
4. Genetic Entropy and the Decay of the Human Genome
Another assumption evolution makes is that beneficial mutations are common enough and harmful mutations are rare enough that natural selection can work to improve the species. In order for this to occur, the number of mutations in the functional (non-junk) DNA must be less than 1 per individual. But current studies of Micro-biology have shown that the actual mutation rate in human beings is over 100 per individual. Even if 95% of our DNA is junk, this would still yield about 5 new mutations per individual per generation. Furthermore, it has been shown that the vast majority of these mutations are near-neutral or harmful. This suggests that rather than improving, the Human genome is actually decaying over time. No amount of natural selection can stop this. Evidence for decay can also be found in every higher animal species. If evolution is biological change over time, than it seems to me that we are changing in the wrong direction.
Based on this evidence, I hope you can see that my objections to evolution are not based only on my religious faith. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support my conclusions. The points I have listed are only a few out of many factual and logical objections to the theory of evolution.
If you are interested in further study, allow me to recommend the following resources (which I have used as sources for my argument):
-The Edge of Evolution by Dr. Michael J. Behe
-Darwin’s Black Box also by Michael Behe
-Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. J.C. Sanford
-Unlocking the Mysteries of Life (this one is a video by Focus on the Family)
-Codes and Creation (a DVD from Creation Ministries International)
Again, thank you for commenting.
Respectfully yours,
Lightweaver
_____________________________________________________
To the rest of my readers: I hope this encourages you not to be afraid of the arguments raised against us by Evolutionists and others. The facts (twisted and suppressed as they are today) are in our favor. And science, real science, is an awesome testimony to the greatness of our creator.
Special thanks to my Mom (a mathematical statistician who studies science for a hobby) who helped me compile and organize the data for this article. You're amazing!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Killer Compromise
As we all know, Darwinism is the official scientific philosophy accepted by our culture today. But here’s a question: does being widely accepted make a thing true? In the last article, we talked about how the validity of any given scientific philosophy should be judged by how closely it fits the observable evidence. Not how widely accepted it is. In other words, science is not democratic. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.
Sadly, many Christians assume that because Darwinism is so well established (i.e. widely accepted) it must therefore be the true science of origins. Taking evolution to be fact, they then try to fit their faith around it. There have been many pseudo-evolutionary theories put forward over the years to try to reconcile Christianity and Evolution. One of the most popular today is Theistic Evolution. Theistic Evolution is basically Evolution with a qualifier: God. God started everything and then let random chance, billions of years, and natural selection do the rest, only stepping in at key points (like the creation of man).
A reasonable compromise, a level-headed balance between science and religion, don’t you think? After all, we wouldn’t want to be labeled fanatics, or worse, Creationists, now would we? But there is one small problem with this seemingly reasonable, level-headed solution. Namely, it undermines the very foundation of Christianity itself.
What is the basis of Christianity? Christ. The belief that Christ is the Son of God and that he died on a cross to save sinners. This is what we call the Gospel.
Here are some of the ways Theistic Evolution undermines the Gospel:
Denies our need for a savior: This one doesn’t come intuitively, but think about it for a moment. Death is the vehicle of evolution. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, and millions of years all require death. If God created death as part of the original creation (as Theistic Evolution implies), then death was not the result of sin. If death was not the result of sin, then sin must not be a big deal. Therefore, if sin is no big deal, why do we need a savior to save us from sin?
Denies the goodness of God: How could a good God create a world full of death, disease, suffering, struggle, and pain? This makes death God's fault not man’s. So how is man responsible for death if it was there from the beginning?
Denies the truthfulness of God: If Theistic Evolution is true, then the Creation account in Genesis is false. That makes God a liar. If we cannot trust him to tell us the truth about creation, how can we trust him about anything else he says (especially about salvation for mankind)?
The list continues but the bottom line is this: Theistic Evolution denies the absolute truth of scripture by assuming the very first words of scripture, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” are false.
If the foundation is faulty, the building will collapse in the first earth quake.
Remember the reason for coming up with Theistic Evolution in the first place? It was to try to “fit” Christianity into the evolutionary paradigm. But in trying to fit Christianity into the paradigm, Theistic Evolution destroys the very meaning and purpose of Christianity.
Why do we want to fit Christianity into the paradigm, again? Because we believe the ridiculous fallacy that widely accepted equals true. But truth is not democratic (To those of you who would argue that truth is relative, I have a challenge for you: build a bridge on that principle and then walk across it.)
If you had to choose between the word of an infallible God who created the entire universe, or the word of a fallible scientist who frequently makes mistakes that result in the contents of a test tube blowing up in his face, whose word would you trust to tell you the truth about reality?
As Christians, our starting point should be “Scripture as absolute truth and see how the scientific evidence fits around it,” not “Evolution as absolute truth and see how scripture fits in around it.”
Sadly, many Christians assume that because Darwinism is so well established (i.e. widely accepted) it must therefore be the true science of origins. Taking evolution to be fact, they then try to fit their faith around it. There have been many pseudo-evolutionary theories put forward over the years to try to reconcile Christianity and Evolution. One of the most popular today is Theistic Evolution. Theistic Evolution is basically Evolution with a qualifier: God. God started everything and then let random chance, billions of years, and natural selection do the rest, only stepping in at key points (like the creation of man).
A reasonable compromise, a level-headed balance between science and religion, don’t you think? After all, we wouldn’t want to be labeled fanatics, or worse, Creationists, now would we? But there is one small problem with this seemingly reasonable, level-headed solution. Namely, it undermines the very foundation of Christianity itself.
What is the basis of Christianity? Christ. The belief that Christ is the Son of God and that he died on a cross to save sinners. This is what we call the Gospel.
Here are some of the ways Theistic Evolution undermines the Gospel:
Denies our need for a savior: This one doesn’t come intuitively, but think about it for a moment. Death is the vehicle of evolution. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, and millions of years all require death. If God created death as part of the original creation (as Theistic Evolution implies), then death was not the result of sin. If death was not the result of sin, then sin must not be a big deal. Therefore, if sin is no big deal, why do we need a savior to save us from sin?
Denies the goodness of God: How could a good God create a world full of death, disease, suffering, struggle, and pain? This makes death God's fault not man’s. So how is man responsible for death if it was there from the beginning?
Denies the truthfulness of God: If Theistic Evolution is true, then the Creation account in Genesis is false. That makes God a liar. If we cannot trust him to tell us the truth about creation, how can we trust him about anything else he says (especially about salvation for mankind)?
The list continues but the bottom line is this: Theistic Evolution denies the absolute truth of scripture by assuming the very first words of scripture, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” are false.
If the foundation is faulty, the building will collapse in the first earth quake.
Remember the reason for coming up with Theistic Evolution in the first place? It was to try to “fit” Christianity into the evolutionary paradigm. But in trying to fit Christianity into the paradigm, Theistic Evolution destroys the very meaning and purpose of Christianity.
Why do we want to fit Christianity into the paradigm, again? Because we believe the ridiculous fallacy that widely accepted equals true. But truth is not democratic (To those of you who would argue that truth is relative, I have a challenge for you: build a bridge on that principle and then walk across it.)
If you had to choose between the word of an infallible God who created the entire universe, or the word of a fallible scientist who frequently makes mistakes that result in the contents of a test tube blowing up in his face, whose word would you trust to tell you the truth about reality?
As Christians, our starting point should be “Scripture as absolute truth and see how the scientific evidence fits around it,” not “Evolution as absolute truth and see how scripture fits in around it.”
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Science or Religion?
It's quite a question, isn't it? It rears its head in the school systems all the time, and it gets screen time in the scientific community as well. Should Creationism, or even Intelligent Design, be ruled out of education or theories because they have religious background?
Let me define some terms here so we're all on the same page. There is a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. The premise of Creationism is that the universe was created by some god or another. Intelligent Design includes, but is not limited to, Creationism. ID is based on the premise that some intelligent being created the universe, but it doesn't have to be a deity. Could be aliens, other high life forms, etc. Creationism has a religious connotation, whereas ID could be religious or philisophical. Evolution, likewise, is based on the premise that life happened by random chance and that simple life forms have evolved into more and more complex being, each better than the previous, because of natural selection. It exludes the influence of a higher power in creation. Evolution, then, would be philosophically based.
With that out of the way, let's get down to the thick stuff.
The argument for keeping Creationism and/or ID out of the schools and science is that they have a basis in religion. Science, they argue, should be science, not religion. Religion should stay in religion class, not be taught in the labs. They define science as the explanation of phenomenon through natural processes.
Now wait just a second.
Evolution, Creationism, and ID do have one thing in common: they are philosophies. They are not based on something that can be proved, but something that is believed. None of these are based on pure, unadulterated science. Science itself must be based on an unprovable premise. So it's not so much a science versus religion question, it's more of a philosophy versus religion question.
By keeping Creationism and/or ID out of schools and science, the scientific community is in fact limiting science. If the evidence says there is a creator (or creators), so be it. Scientists ought to go where the evidence takes them, not set up road blocks with definitions.
This impacts more than just the scientific community. It hits the school systems too. By ruling out Creationism and ID from standard curriculum and/or refusing to allow teachers to discuss these theories with their students, they are, perhaps unintentionally, brainwashing the students. If all you ever heard was evolution, and all that "religion stuff" had nothing to do with science, you'd never even consider the possibilities of Creationism or ID.
The question shouldn't be, "Does this theory/philosophy have religous connotations?" The issue, rather, should be, "Which theory/philosophy best fits the scientific evidence?"
Let me define some terms here so we're all on the same page. There is a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. The premise of Creationism is that the universe was created by some god or another. Intelligent Design includes, but is not limited to, Creationism. ID is based on the premise that some intelligent being created the universe, but it doesn't have to be a deity. Could be aliens, other high life forms, etc. Creationism has a religious connotation, whereas ID could be religious or philisophical. Evolution, likewise, is based on the premise that life happened by random chance and that simple life forms have evolved into more and more complex being, each better than the previous, because of natural selection. It exludes the influence of a higher power in creation. Evolution, then, would be philosophically based.
With that out of the way, let's get down to the thick stuff.
The argument for keeping Creationism and/or ID out of the schools and science is that they have a basis in religion. Science, they argue, should be science, not religion. Religion should stay in religion class, not be taught in the labs. They define science as the explanation of phenomenon through natural processes.
Now wait just a second.
Evolution, Creationism, and ID do have one thing in common: they are philosophies. They are not based on something that can be proved, but something that is believed. None of these are based on pure, unadulterated science. Science itself must be based on an unprovable premise. So it's not so much a science versus religion question, it's more of a philosophy versus religion question.
By keeping Creationism and/or ID out of schools and science, the scientific community is in fact limiting science. If the evidence says there is a creator (or creators), so be it. Scientists ought to go where the evidence takes them, not set up road blocks with definitions.
This impacts more than just the scientific community. It hits the school systems too. By ruling out Creationism and ID from standard curriculum and/or refusing to allow teachers to discuss these theories with their students, they are, perhaps unintentionally, brainwashing the students. If all you ever heard was evolution, and all that "religion stuff" had nothing to do with science, you'd never even consider the possibilities of Creationism or ID.
The question shouldn't be, "Does this theory/philosophy have religous connotations?" The issue, rather, should be, "Which theory/philosophy best fits the scientific evidence?"
Sunday, November 22, 2009
It's All Connected? No Way!
Being a Senior this year, I’m going through the usual headache of college applications and open houses. While it is rather irritating to sit for hours in a crowded auditorium listening to professors go on and on about why I should invest four years of my life and thousands of dollars attending their university, there are amusing moments as well.
One such moment of humor occurred while I was attending an open house a couple weekends ago. A good natured lady-professor with a Scottish accent was explaining the merits of a particular program her college offers. The one point she kept returning to was the unique system of learning they use in teaching their students. Unlike other universities, she said, they teach their students that everything is connected. She went on to explain how History is connected to Literature, and how Philosophy and Religion are connected to them both. No other college, she insisted, teaches students the connections between things.
At that point, my eyes grew very wide. And suppressing the urge to laugh out loud, I turned to my Mom (sitting beside me) and gave her a knowing look. You see, as a home-school student, I have been taught from the time I was in elementary school that everything is connected. That concept was nothing new to me. It seemed ludicrous to try to understand the world any other way.
Although I joked with my mom about it on the way home, it also made me think. I realized with a sort of slow shock, that this fundamental principle of connection that I take so much as a matter of fact is totally foreign to most people. There are two theories about the nature of reality floating around right now: The first, as I have already mentioned, is the “Everything is Connected” Theory. The Second, and by far the more popular, is the Compartmentalization Theory.
The Compartmentalization Theory says that things are not connected. Everything is isolated and separate from everything else. So, according to this theory, History and Literature are not connected, because they are categorized under different subjects in school. In the same way, the Secular and the Sacred are supposed to be unconnected because one deals with the natural realm and the other with the supernatural realm. Essentially, Compartmentalization says you have a bunch of boxes in your brain, and none of those boxes touch any of the other boxes.
The only problem with this theory is that it does not reflect reality.
Let me illustrate with an example. Take two sciences: Chemistry and Biology. At first glance this seems a perfect example of Compartmentalization. Chemistry is the science that deals with non-living matter, and Biology is the science that deals with living matter. Pretty simple. But wait a moment, what happens when you take biology down to the cellular level? Eventually what you get is living matter (cells) composed of nonliving matter (proteins, amino acids, lipids, etc.). Is this biology or chemistry? Actually it’s both. It’s called Biochemistry, and it is where biology and chemistry overlap.
You see why Compartmentalization, while a nice way of organizing information, is not really consistent with the way reality works. Nothing is totally isolated from everything else. There is always some connecting point, some overlap. This is because we live in a wholistic universe. That is, when God created the cosmos, he designed it to function according to natural laws that govern every area of life. The universe we live in is a unified whole, not a bunch of disconnected boxes. So instead of boxes, your brains actually look more like a light spectrum where each color flows into the next.
This principle of connection has implications not only for the sciences, but also for the fundamental questions of life. What we believe about God (theology) will affect what we believe is real (philosophy), and what we believe is right and wrong (ethics). In turn, what we believe about these areas will inform what we value and how we live. If we connect the dots, we see that what we believe about one area of life has repercussions for every other area of life. This is why it doesn’t work to try to separate the Secular and the Sacred, because ultimately, what we believe about God will determine how we live our lives.
Although this blog is nominally a science ethics blog, you will notice that we talk about a wide variety of issues ranging from theology to politics. I hope this understanding everything is connected will help you follow along and make connections yourself.
One such moment of humor occurred while I was attending an open house a couple weekends ago. A good natured lady-professor with a Scottish accent was explaining the merits of a particular program her college offers. The one point she kept returning to was the unique system of learning they use in teaching their students. Unlike other universities, she said, they teach their students that everything is connected. She went on to explain how History is connected to Literature, and how Philosophy and Religion are connected to them both. No other college, she insisted, teaches students the connections between things.
At that point, my eyes grew very wide. And suppressing the urge to laugh out loud, I turned to my Mom (sitting beside me) and gave her a knowing look. You see, as a home-school student, I have been taught from the time I was in elementary school that everything is connected. That concept was nothing new to me. It seemed ludicrous to try to understand the world any other way.
Although I joked with my mom about it on the way home, it also made me think. I realized with a sort of slow shock, that this fundamental principle of connection that I take so much as a matter of fact is totally foreign to most people. There are two theories about the nature of reality floating around right now: The first, as I have already mentioned, is the “Everything is Connected” Theory. The Second, and by far the more popular, is the Compartmentalization Theory.
The Compartmentalization Theory says that things are not connected. Everything is isolated and separate from everything else. So, according to this theory, History and Literature are not connected, because they are categorized under different subjects in school. In the same way, the Secular and the Sacred are supposed to be unconnected because one deals with the natural realm and the other with the supernatural realm. Essentially, Compartmentalization says you have a bunch of boxes in your brain, and none of those boxes touch any of the other boxes.
The only problem with this theory is that it does not reflect reality.
Let me illustrate with an example. Take two sciences: Chemistry and Biology. At first glance this seems a perfect example of Compartmentalization. Chemistry is the science that deals with non-living matter, and Biology is the science that deals with living matter. Pretty simple. But wait a moment, what happens when you take biology down to the cellular level? Eventually what you get is living matter (cells) composed of nonliving matter (proteins, amino acids, lipids, etc.). Is this biology or chemistry? Actually it’s both. It’s called Biochemistry, and it is where biology and chemistry overlap.
You see why Compartmentalization, while a nice way of organizing information, is not really consistent with the way reality works. Nothing is totally isolated from everything else. There is always some connecting point, some overlap. This is because we live in a wholistic universe. That is, when God created the cosmos, he designed it to function according to natural laws that govern every area of life. The universe we live in is a unified whole, not a bunch of disconnected boxes. So instead of boxes, your brains actually look more like a light spectrum where each color flows into the next.
This principle of connection has implications not only for the sciences, but also for the fundamental questions of life. What we believe about God (theology) will affect what we believe is real (philosophy), and what we believe is right and wrong (ethics). In turn, what we believe about these areas will inform what we value and how we live. If we connect the dots, we see that what we believe about one area of life has repercussions for every other area of life. This is why it doesn’t work to try to separate the Secular and the Sacred, because ultimately, what we believe about God will determine how we live our lives.
Although this blog is nominally a science ethics blog, you will notice that we talk about a wide variety of issues ranging from theology to politics. I hope this understanding everything is connected will help you follow along and make connections yourself.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
What is Ethical?
So, if you haven’t noticed yet, this blog is a blog of ethics. “Ethics” is defined as “a system of moral principles.” In order for this blog to make any sense to anybody, we have to have the same definition of “moral.” So, how are we defining morals? Where’s the line between right and wrong? This is where there is disagreement on the subject of ethics. Right and wrong are determined by what one considers to be the highest authority. Many people define right and wrong by the current laws, what they feel,or natural reason. As Christians, we believe that God is the ultimate rule-maker. The Bible is the word of God given to man and passed down through the centuries. Therefore, the Bible dictates what is right and what is wrong.
You'll notice as we move along that a whole lot of these posts end up being political. Politics and ethics are directly related. Politics are essentially laws or proposed laws. Laws are designed to promote what is good. So, when there is disagreement on a law or a bill, it is because people do not concur on the ethics behind the proposal.
As you read this blog, I believe you will notice how this esoteric idea of "ethics" impacts far more of the world than you would think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)