I get lots of offers for free conservative books, but I now usually turn them down since I barely ever even crack them open. I then got an e-mail for the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (from Regency like every conservative targeted book). Now, I’ve always been of the attitude that evolution is science (the book uses the word “Darwinism” for what most people would just call “evolution”) and everything else so far presented to explain the origin of the species is not. So, I was curious exactly what are the arguments are against evolution and what justification one could have for another view, and thus I asked for a copy.
I haven’t finished it yet, but I’ve read most of it as I’ve been more interested in this book as I find looking at scientific problems from other angles (even if I think they are ultimately incorrect) to be more interesting than looking at political issues from different angles.
QUICK DIGRESSION: I should point out that there is a big element of faith in science; we don’t all have the time to prove scientifically everything, so we have to assume the experts in the fields know what they’re talking about. When I fill my SUV with an explosive liquid, I have to assume who made it knew what he was doing so that when I push the pedal down that the SUV won’t explode but instead it will move forward (sometimes it doesn’t, but that’s because I accidentally left the parking break on). Where I can’t have faith in science is when ideology seems to be driving it. This happens with environmentalism, conspiracy theories, and people trying to make science conform with religion (such as Muslims who think there is a scientific reason they are forbidden from pork). When ideology gets involved, there is no proof so great as to dissuade someone (the human mind is able to logically wrap itself around anything). Also, I should mention I find the idea of being able to prove scientifically the existence of God profane; I have no Bible verse to back that up, but, since God doesn’t’ constantly appear in the sky saying, “Booga booga booga! Look at me! I’m God!”, I don’t see why He’d hide Himself to be found in scientific research. People have free will, and thus it seems to me that God is only able to be known by faith (see the Babel Fish).
Anyway, I don’t want to be long-winded, so I’ll just jump into my main points and maybe expand on other things in the comments if a discussion starts. Apparently, Intelligent Design is based on trying to show that it is too improbable that the way species designed today all happened by chance. I just think that’s a problem because you never can actually figure out the scientific odds of anything, especially since we don’t know how large the universe is or how many universes there are. The book finally did reach that topic by stating in one sentence that multiple universes can’t be proven… and then doesn’t expand on that.
So, I find the argument unpersuasive and un-provable – which doesn’t mean its wrong, but I don’t see much science to it. Also, the proponents definitely seem religiously motivated (this is one area, due to the history, I’d more trust an atheist arguing for Intelligent Design… and, for the same reason, I’m less trust atheist who asserts evolution is true and unquestionable).
But, the book did raise many valid problems with evolution (with others points I found to be reaching). Also, it did seem to show that much of those who are so vehemently for evolution are just as ideologically motivated as those for Creationism (which I do lump in with IDers despite objections otherwise). Many proponents seem oversensitive to any criticism– even when much of it is valid. Much of the fossil record doesn’t fit their model (such as the “Cambrian Explosion”), and then there is the missing link problem. For instance, can someone point to any two species which definitively evolved from each other beyond Darwin’s finches? With humans, though the chimp is closest to us genetically, we didn’t evolve from it but instead all the apes and the humans evolved in separate paths off a single relative of which I’m ignorant. Plus, despite assertions otherwise, they haven’t shown speciation in a lab. They’ve only shown extreme variation (“Look how different this fruit fly acts from that other fruit fly!”). If one were able to observe a single-celled organism evolve into a multi-cellular organism, that would be much more convincing. Also, all in all, it’s still a tough sell that a rodent became a human through minor mutations over 70 million years.
Also, evolution proponents have only fed fuel to the fire by often trying to set evolution against religion (like those Darwin fishes some cars sport; are those to say that Darwin is opposed to Jesus?). There’s a hostility there that doesn’t speak well for science which one hopes to be more even-tempered. Even though I think evolution is the only valid scientific theory out there, I often find myself siding with Creationists as attacks against them seem to be more attacks against religion.
But these are all side issues. Here’s what I think is the big secret about the evolution/Creationism debate is…
IT’S THE MOST COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY USELESS DISCUSSION IN HUMAN HISTORY!
The dark secret of evolution is that is has no effect on any major sciences that actually produce anything useful. If everyone believed that all life was created one thousand years ago by a flying spaghetti monster, it would have no affect on advances in medicine or anything else. Every useful science is based on things that can be observed now in the lab, not inferences from the fossil record about how you get from a rat to an elephant. Really, evolution seems to me less a real science than a speculative history of the species. The data for large scale evolution is limited to what got preserved as fossils (which is a very small subset of everything that was out there), and the inferences made about the relation between those fossils is completely speculative no matter how elegant those inferences are. None of it can be proved in a lab, and getting some fruit flies to prefer bananas while others apples proves absolutely nothing. I find evolution useful as a model to think of some things (such as the purpose of humor), but all of those conclusion I make are un-provable too.
And the big problem with Creationism (other than the convoluted views on science used to support) is that it’s such a huge waste of time for Christians to focus on that it probably makes baby Jesus cry. Jesus came to earth to preach a message of salvation, not that the earth is only 6000 years old or any other scientific message. When Christians could be preaching a message of love and bringing more people into the fold, instead they’re scaring people away with nutty views on science.
I was planning to read more books on evolution and Creationism after this, but now I just really don’t care. I think I’m going to get one of John Derbyshire’s math books instead.
Further discussion in the comments would be appreciated. I’m sure many of you disagree with me, and I want to hear from you.
Well said, sir. I’ve always been irritated by the either/or mentality of the “debate,” which almost always flies off topic, no matter which “side” is speaking. I find absolutely nothing hypocritical about believing in both God and in evolution. It’s faith based yes, but God creating the universe through a lengthy and sublimely beautiful process that started with an explosion that created all the galaxies and stars that in turn spawned planets, that in turn spwaned life on a select fraction of these planets; and eventually we arive at me sitting at my desk in a cube farm typing on a computer built by warm blooded mammals with opposbale thumbs. A friggin’ miracle if you ask me.
Woohoo! First!
Frank: a group of us had a great conversation on this very subject – check out the comments at my blog at http://stand.townhall.com/g/aedc1b53-6912-4f63-9160-2d8bf1be0046 as well as my friend Pableezy’s blog at http://pableezy.blogspot.com/2006/08/interesting-read.html (where I blog under the name “Qoheleth”), and yes, this is a blatant attempt at pimping my own blog, thanks for letting me! I owe you one.
Yes, you’re right on the money – compared to salvation, creation is a secondary issue. While I’ve slaved over a hot keyboard detailing reasons why creation is important, for me it boils down to this: are we created, and therefore have value, or are we a random cosmic accident, in which case we don’t?
And yes, I do funny posts, too. Maybe you and I can take your “Nuke the Moon” meme and my “War with Pluto” meme, join ’em up and nuke Pluto! Let me know what you think…
– Keith
stand.townhall.com
Woohoo! First!
Oops, scratch that. Paleo beat me, and I’m paying the price for being longwinded.
Frank: a group of us had a great conversation on this very subject – check out the comments at my blog at http://stand.townhall.com/g/aedc1b53-6912-4f63-9160-2d8bf1be0046 as well as my friend Pableezy’s blog at http://pableezy.blogspot.com/2006/08/interesting-read.html (where I blog under the name “Qoheleth”), and yes, this is a blatant attempt at pimping my own blog, thanks for letting me! I owe you one.
Yes, you’re right on the money – compared to salvation, creation is a secondary issue. While I’ve slaved over a hot keyboard detailing reasons why creation is important, for me it boils down to this: are we created, and therefore have value, or are we a random cosmic accident, in which case we don’t?
And yes, I do funny posts, too. Maybe you and I can take your “Nuke the Moon” meme and my “War with Pluto” meme, join ’em up and nuke Pluto! Let me know what you think…
– Keith
stand.townhall.com
When you tell a kid he is nothing but an animal, don’t be surprised if he acts like one. The debate is important, at least biblically on if God can be trusted at His word. Also, if Darwinian evolution is true, how come it takes the courts to keep it alive, not scientists. Checking the histories of those involved in the dabate most evolutionists are not scientists in the laboratory sense. For a good look at the dabate from a scientific viewpoint read “Darwin’s Black Box” by microbiologist Michael Behe. It’s kind of deep but put ID in a scientific light. I know this is supposed to be a humor site but you started it Frank.
I personally disaggree with the whole evolution thing, as I am a “creationist”. But yes, the whole thing really comes down to what you believe in. Not much is going to change someone’s views on a subject like that. I also think that a lot of the evolution is more “religion” based.
I understand that I shouldn’t be talking about crazy ideas that don’t have any proof, when I’m a creationist, but I guess we are just trying to prove that everyone else is just as crazy as we are.
But in the end it doesn’t really matter. We don’t seem to be getting any closer to the anwers.
allthatsright,
I don’t feel like I have any less worth because I think there’s a scientific explanation behind the orgin of humans; to me, it’s just a part of God’s plan.
And while many people for evolution aren’t really for it because of a scientific view, most scientists are for it and most aren’t motivated by ideology from what I know.
allthatsright,
Here’s where the debate becomes the most divisive. Believing that God created us with the tool called evolution does not imply at all that we are just animals. I don’t believe that, and I’ve never called my kids animals. Being human is inherently superior to being an animal. why? We have souls, we are aware of our mortality and we have the power to rise above the primitive instincts that we have in common with the lower life forms.
Let me make this clear; I believe in God. I believe in the human soul. I believe there is life after death, in some fashion. But I am educated enough to sooner believe we were created over billions of years of dazzling miracles, rather than constructed out of clay a few thousand years ago. The Bible is a message to humans to embrace morality and spirituality, not a pat historical account of the earths’ beginnings.
It’s interesting that the Catholic Church doesn’t take a position on whether man became man through a process of evolution or through some other process. I guess that’s because they don’t view the story of Genesis as being the definitive cookbook for creating humans, but rather a book that teaches an important theological truth about man (i.e., that man is fallen and in need of redemption). I mean, come on, would we really understand God if he told us how he “really” created life?
It really boils down to believing the Bible. If you don’t believe all of it, who chooses what to believe? It says God created it. It says Jesus came to save us from our sins. Which to believe? Which not to believe? If you believe the Bible, then we are “evolving” the wrong way. Didn’t the early patriarchs live to be 900+ years old? And now we’re good to make it 80? I see it as, you can believe the whole Bible or none of the Bible, but not pick and choose.
As an Agnostic, I have no problem getting evolution and creationism to coexist.
It’s easy to imagine evolution could be guided by a higher power (creator)
But, ‘spose you deny the existance of a higher power, and when you die, you find out you were wrong?
That’d be a li’l embarassing…So, I’ll reserve judgement, and hedge my bet.
IDers and creationists shouldn’t even be debating or arguing under the pretext of science. From what I can tell, they first and foremost derive their views from Genesis 1 and, regardless of what scientific evidence is revealed, they won’t change that belief. They basically cherry pick evidence from the scientific community to fit their views. I think their argument would be better served if they simply said (as my mom does), “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” It would at least be more consistent.
God created man in his image, God is an ape!! Works for both therios.
In my opinion, the debate on the “Orgin of the Species” has nothing to do with the origin of the species. Instead it is an arguement on the validity of Christianity (or religion in general) and atheism. If there is a god (or other divine being) then the Darwinian/Evolutionary source of man is wrong. At that point, there is a defined purpose to life and a superior moral definition that we should strive for instead of moral relativism that we see so predominately in western society.
For the record, I believe the 7 day (24 hour day), God spoke and bang! it happened version. I believe from a statistical and evidential perspective that Darwinian evolution is nearly impossible.
From what I’ve read, I believe that in the creation there may not have been the variety of animals that we see today. eg – There were only a couple “breeds” of dogs, but they contained the DNA potential of all the dogs we see today. And likewise for the other animals.
Also, the animals before the flood (also debated like creation) were generally larger and lived longer, like the people. Thus the giants of legend and the fossil record are not necessarily a different species.
Climate changes after the flood would have killed off many animals that did not get to the areas that would support them and reduced the size and life span of humans and animals.
I’m not a scientist, nor have I read everything there is. But I think it is more open to debate than is allowed today.
Whether the origin of species is like I think or not does not change my belief in God or the Bible. And, in the end I don’t think we will ever know because I don’t think God can be proven. If you could prove creation, you prove God, then there wouldn’t be a need for faith.
troy,
Since I think the Genesis version of the creation of earth doesn’t makes any scientific sense if taken literally, I can’t believe in Jesus?
Andrew C,
I see plenty of debate (most of it, actually) about evolution that is solely science, and I see nothing about it that excludes God… same as scientific explanation for anything else don’t exclude God.
Troy,
Why does it have to all or nothing regarding the Bible? It’s a book, compiled by people over decades and centuries, from numerous sources. I find absolutely nothing wrong with taking to heart the messages of love and morality and charity, while ignoring all the stuff about how to treat your concubines and how many sheep to sacrifice on an altar of specific configuration, not to mention all the begatting going on. Yawn.
Frank,
I’m just saying when we start picking and choosing what we believe in the Bible, we jump on the proverbial slippery slope? What if I told you that I believe in the Genesis account, but don’t believe Jesus as the savior? It’s all or nothing.
It all comes down to faith, actually. Do you believe in the Bible? The Bible says the Earth was created in six days. You don’t think that’s how he “actually” did it? He’s God! Omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent; why couldn’t He have done it that way?
The Bible is not a science book, but whenever it speaks of science it is scientifically accurate.
Remember all those people who thought the earth was flat? They coulda just read the Bible:
Isa 40:22a It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.
Or when Abraham Lincoln died from bloodletting? He would have lived longer if his doctors had known about the verses that say:
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Psa 102:26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
There are other examples which I don’t feel like looking for, but there are many others.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
In greek, the word ‘inspiration’ used here is translated “God-breathed.”
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Every word. That means either all of the Bible is true, or none of it is! We can’t say, “Oh, okay, this part of the Bible is God’s word, but not this part,” because then we essentially are playing God. No, every word of the Scripture is God’s word.
Some pretty well-known scientists will back me up on this:
“Why will people go astray when they have this blessed book to guide them?”
-Michael Faraday
“If all the great books in the world were given life and were brought together in convention, the moment the Bible entered, the other books would fall on their faces as the gods of Philistia fell when the ark of God was brought into thier presence in the temple of Dagon.”
-Sir Isaac Newton
“All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more strongly the truths contained in the Holy Scriptures.”
– Sir William Herschel
“The chief aim of all investigations of the extrenal world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”
-Johannes Kepler
Paleo: well, if the Bible is a purely human work, then yes, you’re quite right; but if God Himself gave it, then we have to accept it like that. And if He thinks we need to know how to treat the sheep we love and how many concubines to sacrifice on the altar – or was that the other way around? – then, well, He’s got my attention. Concubines always get my attention, and I treat mine quite well, thank you. Same goes for my sheep.
And if the ground rule is that we have to debate this on a purely scientific basis, I’m okay with that.
Won’t we find out how it all works when we get to Heaven?
Far be it from me to say why you should or shouldn’t be reading the Bible, but if you’re reading it as a story book or to make you feel good about your morality, charity and love, you’re missing the meat and the message of the book.
troy said:
What if I told you that I believe in the Genesis account, but don’t believe Jesus as the savior?
Then you’d be a Jew, troy. If you think hard to swallow science is as important as Jesus message, you’re making a tough sell.
Troy,
I believe in God, I try to follow the teachings of Jesus in my own imperfect way, but I think it’s unwise to take the whole Bible at face value. If only the splodey dopes did more “picking and choosing” when studying the Koran we’d probably have much less of a fundamentalist Islam problem right now. Good Muslims have learned what passages not to follow, and thus are not the problem.
Emily,
That’s a lot of stretching. But, no matter how much I stretch it, I can’t get the order of the six day creation to fit into any realm of science.
Why would God be so sloppy as just to make everything suddenly appear when everything with a sceintific explanation is so more elegant?
Frank,
I was using that as an (obviously poor) example to say that to have faith in the NT you need to have faith in the OT. If you believe what the Bible says in Matthew, you need to believe what it says in Genesis. How do you, personally, decide what’s accurate and what’s not in the Bible?
Okay, I can certainly believe the Bible is God’s word, and the human beings who wrote it down for Him were true to His Word. But that doesn’t mean He didn’t simplify things a bit for folks to digest. And exactly what is a day to God? It could be a day that to us would be thousands of millenia long. Time is nothing to God.
This is fun!
Paleo,
Maybe if we picked and chose less in regards to the Bible, we would have a less screwed up society. Just a thought.
troy,
How does anyone? That Catholics, for instance, have more books than others. There was a council – I forget how long ago – that decided what to put in the Bible and what not to. I can read the words of Jesus and they ring true… but why must I blindly accept everything else as literal truth? Could I follow all the teaching of Jesus and be denied from Heaven because I think the earth is 4.4 billions years old based on known science?
Paleo,
Why would it be worded in Genesis chapter 1 that “And the evening and the morning were the first day”?
I believe in the Creation account. to me, it seems more logical. mostly because of the nature of God. I almost don’t think that billions of years of pain and suffering and Survival of the fitest would be called “good” by God. But thats just me.
Sorry Troy, just can’t go along with you there. If I pick and choose, it’s my decision, and I can assure you I won’t be picking the same passages that Phred Phelps and his syphylitic progeny pick when they holler “God Hates Fags!”
Selectivity is not in itself bad. It’s what your mindset is when you go hunting for Biblical backup.
AlaskaNick,
I dunno. God doesn’t seem to care about animals tearing themselve apart now. Animals (to the best of my understanding) don’t have souls, so I don’t know why God would care about survival of the fittest among them.
“Why would it be worded in Genesis chapter 1 that “And the evening and the morning were the first day”?”
Because God was talking to people who still thought there were evil spirits in the rocks and trees, and that the sun was some kind of god! He talked in simple terms to people who hadn’t ventured more than a couple miles from the place they were born, people who couldn’t read.
Not that hard to grasp, my friend.
Frank,
When they canonnized (sp?) the scriptures, every “contending” book had to meet a criteria. The apocrypha did not meet them, therefore were left out. “Which Version Is The Bible?” by Floyd Nolen Jones is a pretty good book on the history of the Bible.
troy,
God’s criteria or man’s criteria?
I think I’ll have to do another post just on the first chapter of Genesis looked at from a scientific perspective – what fits and what doesn’t. It’s my blog, so I can do as many serious posts as I want.
you might be right frankj. i just feel that way for myself. and i think God actually does care for even the animales. (Not liberals though, of course) We just live in a sinfull fallen world now. I think at creation it wasn’t this way.
Frank,
You wrote the most intelligent analysis of it I have heard. Really refreshing. Thank you!
Regarding the “Cambrian Explosion”: Before the Cambrian there were no hard body parts. Secretion of calcium carbonate in animals did not exist yet. Jellyfish, worms etc. make lousy fossils because they have no hard parts – so there are few fossils before the Cambrian. Mollusks are really just worms with shells. The shells make great fossils.
It just looks like an explosion because the plentiful creatures that came before were 100% squishy.
I am pretty sure there are examples of current speciation, but will have to look up some citable examples for you when I have time.
Thans Frank!
If God can’t even spell, that puts everything into question.
Paleo,
We still have people that believe the rocks and trees are filled with evil spirits. And we seem to keep the “Bible Folks” as cave-men. They were actually pretty smart. And how much harder would it have been for God to say he created something in a very long time as opposed to one day.
Frank,
You post what you want. I’ll still read, but it doesn’t mean I’ll agree.
The evolutionist believes that we craweled out of some sort of primordial ooz billions of years ago and somehow “evolved” into what we are now… The Bible teaches that God wonderfully created each one of us…slightly different religions and I will stick with what God had to say about it…
Well said USSJC.
troy,
I’m not trying to be overly argumentative, I’m just trying to be reasonably skeptical. If more Muslims were that way, then maybe they wouldn’t be Muslims anymore.
You’re not a God, I know every God in the world and I’ve never seen you before!
To surmise, concisely, my feelings about creationism vs. evolution: IT’S NOT FUNNY!
Oh..also… since the legitimacy of each rests on entirely different criteria, it is impossible to evaluate – and substantiate – the two through a formal debate, as above. Before arguing either perspective, it must be established under what conditions one can be known to be right. So…how do we know when we’ve found the truth? What burden constitutes truth is different for the two camps, so they CAN’T agree, nor will one ever concede.
Unless we have an earth sharrtering IMAO breakthrough: the development of a transcendent standard of philosophical value!
Who can know the truth? I can’t say where in the scriptures it says it, but there is a reference to time in relation to God that states a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day to the Lord.
As far as evolution goes, I can’t say it isn’t right. Jay Gould (I think) came up with a thoery of drastic changes in a species in a short amount of time & called it “punctuated equillibrium”. It’s not unlike a mutation, though it’s not a random change; it’s more of a necessary adaptation. I don’t buy the man from monkeys idea, though. Why are there still monkeys if that were the case? Could they possibly have “devolved” from us?
But as creationism & evolution go, why wouldn’t God give life the ability to adapt to changes in the environment?
Unrelated Science Issue:
A TV show (so it must be true) on the other night was about a volcanologist couple who have done a good job showing that the moon can cause volcanic erruptions. It may have even caused the 2004 Tsunami and the 2005 Pakistan earthquake.
Strikes me as more “Nuke the Moon” propaganda.
It’s simple. God is an engineer.
The Bible uses symbolism to explain fact all the time.
Take the Book of Revelation. Most of it was a description of the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70.
I see nothing wrong with a story to explain scientific fact.
Also, with regard to many of the excessively violent parts of the Old Testament…
Remember that there is an historical aspect to the Bible. Many parts describe the punishments that were meted out back in those days in the name of God, before Christ came and straightened all of the mo’fo’s out.
greg zywicki,
Does sound like we should teach the moon a lesson.
I would suggest that you read Lee Strobel’s Case For A Creator…. it pretty much turns Evolution/Darwinism on its head as completely false and non-science-based. One of the best books I’ve ever read.
I don’t really see why God would use evolution to create mankind. I think it would be a far more awesome display of power for God to just say “let there be X” and X was. Instantly. Seems to me that God wouldn’t waste His time making earth the slow way if He wanted to get the results.
Sure, He could have used evolution, but I don’t think He did. We are made in God’s image, and that’s important. I don’t think God would make us through evolution if He wanted us in His image. Something about that is jarring to the overall scheme of things.
I guess I’m just too much of a fundamentalist or something. I take the Bible as inerrant. Silly me.
Not, of course, that I want to kill everyone who believes in ID or even plain old evolution. Christ is the main point of the entire Bible, after all.
dave,
Any question raised about evolution just means I’ll have to read a book about evolution that answers those questions. And then it goes back and forth. That’s why I’m more ready to just throw my hands in the air and give up.
SilverBubble,
I come from the other viewpoint. To me, it’s kinda sloppy to just make everything suddenly appear – it’s like a hack in engineering or programming. I find it more theologically satisfying that everything fits under its own rules and thus we only see God through faith.
So you believe that we are basically Grown up germs? We are a cosmic accident?
nick,
I’ve never understood the dichotomy that one has to believe that either humans poofed into existence or we are a “cosmic accident.” God could have created evolution just as he created all other scientific principles. I find that a greater feat than just making man poof into existence with no scientific backstory.
IMAO you are barking up the wrong goelogical column. A Cosmological look covers the issues you have and more.
TRY THIS BOOK
—The Creator and the Cosmos…by Hugh Ross— I dare ya
Um…such things can be used to enhance one’s understanding of the Bible, but they are far from necessary.
Approach the Bible on its own terms, because its legitimacy comes from within, not with some poop.
Actually you are barking up the right geological column. Hugh Ross and his team at Reasons.org take a very scientific view of this issue. Old Earth Creationism. In reading your responses today I do not disagree with you. That website can provide really good scientific input and theories for us believers.
You can believe whatever you wish at your own peril. I, for one, welcome our flying spaghetti monster overlords!
As a Christian and a trained scientist (note NOT a Cristian Scientist), my primary issue with the anti-evolution people are theological rather than scientific.
When I examine the logical conclusion of a God that created the world literally as written in Gen 1, but with all of the evidence of the longer time span in place, I see a God who is playing a cruel practical joke on His creation. While I would certainly allow for the World to have been created in seven days as any true God can not be bound by the physical laws we percieve for the universe or the being is not truely God. I do not wish to view God as a malicious or capricious being, setting back on His throne and laughing at all the poor fools He has led astray with those fake fossils.
That being said (and I hope said somewhat coherently) I agree with those who do not see a literal reading of Gen 1 as a litmus test to get into a Christian heaven or to follow as best I can the teachings of Jesus.
Finnally, I agree with Frank that there are approximately 1.67X10^9 issues that carry more theological importance than ID vs evolution Vs creationism.
Do scientists believe in God? Sure they do just ask Stephen Hawking.
Was there an explosion of matter that started this universe? Sure there was. Just turn your TV to a blank channel and watch the wonder of the universe unfold before you. All that static sure is breathtaking huh?
The spirituality of an individual should be based on what they believe in their soul, not what other people tell them; be they scientist or priest.
Let’s put it this way: You’ll know all you need to know or ever wanted to about how your spirituality intersects with science at the time of your death. Too bad you won’t be able to tell us about it.
The debate over this is pointless other than to use as an intellectual exercise.
Frankj,
In my opinion this is one of the best posts I’ve read from you. Insightful. I enjoyed every word and learned some things I did not know before.
Oh and one more thing to all: evolution is a fact. Otherwise, there would be no viruses or incurable disease. Missing links in various forms have been found and reported throughout the scientific community. Do some research and learn because I’m not going to do it for you. You will find that no missing link is powerful enough to shake your faith if you truly have any.
I agree that the issue isn’t as scientifically important as some Darwinists would like to make out. The fact is that one can know a great deal about biology and other sciences while having odd beliefs about where it came from. As long as they understand correctly how it all works now, they can believe what they want about where it came from.
What disturbs me the most is that one of the reasons evolutionism dominates the education system today is because of the efforts of the ACLU, who did so on the premise of purging religion from schools, and as a result indoctrinated children with a secular humanistic worldview that colored future discoveries. Put the question of where it all came from aside, and ask this question: If the ACLU had not gotten involved, would anything be different?
The scientific answer would be to test it. Repeat all the experiments over again under scientists from all sides of the debate, and tell all communist organizations to bugger off.
How is it God cannot “poof” something into existence and have evidence of how it was done? Can God “build” something in an instant?
Steve,
God can do what He wants, but it just seems sneaky to make it look like the earth is billions of years old while wanting us to believe its thousands of years old.
Frank, wouldn’t the simplest explanation then be that we are confused?
Like this…there used to be giant lizards and people lived for a long time because the ozone surrounding the earth was big and magical back then, protecting its inhabitants from space diseases and hasty death. As a side effect, carbon dating gets screwy because under the old atmosphere, carbon’s half life was different. Carbon dating, therefore, no work so good.
I’m not sure I believe what I just wrote, but it’s kind of cute.
Frank,
Who says God is making the earth appear billions of years old? It is man that suggests that. Are you putting your faith in science or God?
Paleo-
ref. “If only the splodey dopes did more “picking and choosing” when studying the Koran we’d probably have much less of a fundamentalist Islam problem right now. Good Muslims have learned what passages not to follow, and thus are not the problem.”
Just seems to step off topic a bit to me. As a Christian, I believe all other religions (save Judaism) are not divinely inspired. Therefore, picking and choosing from the Koran is not the same as picking and choosing from the Bible. The Koran is a collection of falsities, the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.
But I will agree with what seemed to be one of your implied points, that some portions of the Bible are more important than others. Christ’s message of salvation does trump who begat who (though there are reasons who begat who is also important.)
‘Preciate the debate, too! God bless, and what have you.
Emily, I don’t think you’re so much stretching. Then again, I’m Frank’s Creationist wife.
I have more books for him to read.
But I do agree with him that there are more important messages for us to be out there talking about.
I originally had decided not to voice my opinion since this is a “humor” blog, but here goes.
My opinion on this subject is mixed. I developed it more than a generation ago to include only my personal beliefs. I personally believe that most of the Old Testament is inspired by God, but may not be the literal Truth. Most of it consists of Parables that teach “A” truth.
I do not claim the ability to judge God either. If a “Day” for him takes more than half a billion years as we (and the scientists) count it, then so be it. I believe he guided humanity to become what it is today, by giving it a “nudge” as necessary at times.
The UP side of my Christianity means that I can accept that God guided evolution. The greatest advantage as far as I am concerned, is that this means that MAN arose within the last ten million years as we count time. Even in the worst case, if God decides to erase us as a failed experiment, this means that we still have hundreds of millions of “years” as we count time before the eighth day even comes. Here is the source of my optimism in humanity.
Steve,
I’m following the scientific method, and, for that, I have to put some faith in fellow scientists. I can try and stretch their results to fit a preconceived notion.
And I don’t see how following science is going against God. If the conclusions are against what’s in the Bible, how can I be certain those parts of the Bible are divinely inspired by God? I am only told they are divinely inspired by other people, but not by God himself. While I have faith in Jesus based on his word, I just don’t have faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Nothing in it inspires me to.
Cary,
Actually, I don’t see viruses adapting as convincing evidence of evolution. Every believes in natural selection – it’s readily observable both in nature and the lab – but to get from one species to a completely distinct new species (such as a single cell to a multi cell organism) has not been demonstrated in the lab.
Frank,
Following science is fine! But you do agree that there is a level of faith in that too! Especially historical science. The scientists where not around.
So to say that God is decieving us by making it “appear” to be billions of years old as to the literal interpretation of Genesis is hogwash. If one was to accept the Genesis account then they would not accept the faith of (historical) science as you do.
I agree with you in that it is not important either way. I do not pretend to know how old the earth is. I believe it is between 10,000 and 4,000,000,000 years old. Although somewhere closer to the former. The later just seems unreasonable.
To paleomedic –
Talking about picking and choosing and the Koran, I would have to mention that it’s the “Fundamentalists” (I would rather say extremists) who are picking and choosing from the Koran. I’ve read the whole thing, and the majority of Muslims who don’t blow things up are more along the right track, in my (christian, western-civ., biased against terrorist) opinion.
Aaron – Much of the Koran is based on the Bible. So to say that the Koran is a “collection of falsities” is not entirely correct. It certainly contains some massive spinning of the truth, and some twists of in general Christian beliefs, but it’s not all false.
To Both (and anyone else interested) – It’s important to remember that Islam grew out of a combination of Christianity, Judaism, and the local culture around the City of Mecca. They believe in one (as opposed to one in three parts) God, they revere Christ as a Major Prophet, and they include some cultural things (like polygamy) that don’t come with the other Abrahamic faiths. The ‘splody people and Muslim extremists in general have mixed in a little less Christianity and Judaism and a little more culture. There is no surah in the Koran that says women must wear a Burka (it does say to dress modestly) but the culture says to be covered up (probably because that’s the best way to travel the desert, and the extremists don’t like to change too much, even if the reason for doing something no longer apply).
There are also about three periods of time when Mohamed “recieved” the Koran. First period was while he was still in Mecca, and these are generally most like Christianity and Judaism. Second was after he was invited to take charge (or possibly took advantage of a void of power) of the city of Medina. This section is mostly about how to organize a political structure (not exactly, but roughly) and it’s all about keeping order…and then it starts talking about spreading influence. The third period is after he captured Mecca and started to go find other people to fight. This is where it gets pretty militant and rather harsh, and also where the Jihadis get most of their verses from.
Of course, my rough and ready generalization doesn’t work out perfectly, but isn’t that true of all generalizations?
I hope this was interesting, and not too off topic. What I’d like to say about the creationism-evolution debate has already been said. It’s not very central to my life, so while I used to argue about it more often, I don’t so much anymore. My pastor once explained the literalism of the bible to me this way, “The bible is perfect, therefore, it’s always right. Of course, I’m not perfect, so I can be convinced to disagree with the bible in certain places. I might not understand why or how it’s correct, but when I disagree with the bible it’s still right. Even if I’m stubborn and can’t agree with it.”
I don’t know if that helps, or even makes sense, but it helped me understand when he said it, so maybe it’ll help clarify things for someone else.
Phew, that’s it.
Frank, I appreciate your addressing this subject. I love your humor, but serious thought has its place in the world. Regarding this specific topic, the question of evolution versus creation has a degree more importance than I believe you are giving it. While I agree that a person’s salvation does not depend on whether they believe in a literal Genesis, I do think there are some compelling Scriptural reasons to give heavy weight to creationism when you examine the topic. The main reason being Romans 5:12, which says “…sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…”
According to this verse, death came from sin. So, if evolution is correct, at what point did sin enter the world? When did man become responsible for his actions, and how can any Christian justify so blatant an error on the part of Scripture as the one which says death resulted from sin? If this isn’t accurate, how can we credence any of what the Bible says about Jesus’ atonement for sin? Evolution is based on a whole series of deaths, as species adapted to environmental changes, and older versions became obsolete. Parents died off, hopefully leaving their offspring with the genetic tools to survive for long enough to spawn another generation, with mutation a necessary element of that process. According to evolutionary theory, death was one of the first biological occurrences–a natural part of life, rather than God’s judgement. Yet God’s judgement is the reason we need a Saviour.
However, if Romans is to be believed–and I see no sign of allegory or parable in Paul’s writing here, then death occurred only when man had sinned. The two concepts are incongruous. Either death came long before the species that became man was able to cognitively and willfully sin, thus negating death as the consequence of sin, and contradicting the Bible, or death came as a result of sin, thus nullifying the notion that humans gradually came into being. Since Jesus’ death was atonement for the sin which caused our propensity to die (although it’s not the physical dying I mind–it’s the getting old. Just wait, you’ll see what I mean), I think that the question of evolution versus creation is a much more important question than Christians today want to acknowledge.
I believe this Biblically, but have done a fair bit of reading on the subject, and also believe it scientifically. Give a few more of those books your wife wants you to read a try.
I recomend picking up a copy of “In the Blink of an Eye” by Andrew Parker
http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Eye-Andrew-Parker/dp/0738206075
I got one (hardcover) at WalMart for about $6, it covers the development of eyes (light receptive nerves, at least) and the correlation to the Cambrian Explosion.
Wow. A lot from the last few commenters. I don’t have any response other than that you’ve given me a lot to think about.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
These guys do a pretty good job of dealing with the science aspect of this debate from a creationist perspective.
I don’t think it’s fair to cast evolution as “true science” and creationism as “myth”. Having studied and compared theories and evidence from both camps, I’m of the opinion that evolutionists are just as likely to produce absurd views driven by their faith as creationists, if not more so. Evolutionists like to behave as if they have an absolutely proven theory with just a few kinks they’re still working out. That is a far from accurate portrayal.
Neither model of origins, Genesis or evolution, is a proper scientific theory because neither can be observed and tested, and therefore neither can be formally falsified. Faith is required for either. Further, whether something (fossil, geological form, DNA structure, etc.) is evidence of evolution or creation often depends entirely on the assumptions, the faith, the observer brings to the table in evaluating the evidence. There are cases where evidence would appear to fit only one or the other, but very often one’s conclusions rests more on one’s faith than on the actual evidence. This is acknowledged by the creationist camp, which often seeks what I call differentiating evidence, but hardly ever acknowledged by evolutionists.
There is significant evidence which contradicts evolution, and in many ways the evidence available seems better explained by creation. No one can absolutely prove one or the other, but thus far in my studies I’ve come to lean heavily in favor of creationism, even viewing a literal Genesis account as quite possible.
I am a Creationist. However, I do not care if others believe in evolution or not. What bothers me, is when the public scool system openly ridicules people who believe what the Bible said is true and teaches our children that the only truth is evolution. Believe what you want, but do not teach my kids your crap. I no longer have to worry about that because I home school through k12 (the more than excellant Bill Bennet online school program). I just get the benefit of paying 1500 dollars in extra education expenses per child while subsidizing their poo through my regular tax contributions. Happy note, my husband is deployed, so for 14 months I do not have to pay those taxes. Yee Haw!
Very interesting discussion! (And what, exactly is it doing on your blog, Frank? :0 )
My problem with creationism, in general, is that it always ends up with this implicit assumption: either God is goofing on us by hiding fossil remains of creatures that never existed in places they don’t belong, or somewhere along the way He changed the rules of nature. Could He do that? Of course He could, He’s God and can do anything He chooses to do. But more importantly, would He? For those of you who haven’t read Pope Benedict’s recent speech in Germany (the one that got our Muslim pals all a-twitter, once again), one of his points is that Genesis starts with the sentence “In the beginning was the Word.” The word the Greeks actually used, logos, means both “word” and “reason.” Pope Benedict spends a great deal of time explicating that reason and faith go hand in hand, and each is diminished without the other. To me, a creationist insisting that the Earth is exactly 6,000 some-odd years old, calculated by counting up “begats” in the Old Testament, and a fervent atheist like Richard Dawkins proclaiming that even the altrustic actions of a person sacrificing their own life to save someone else’s are just obeying the blind chemical dictates of their genes, are both missing exactly the same point, although they’d never see it that way. God didn’t give us the brainpower to put a man on the moon or figure out what a mammoth had for breakfast 100,000 years ago just so that He could play games with us. The more we learn about how the universe works, the more we can see the profound beauty that fills every corner of it.
As far as Romans 5:12 goes, the fact that there’s no obvious sign of parable or metaphor doesn’t mean there isn’t one. After all, in Mark Jesus says that he came to place a sword between father and son, and mother and daughter (forgive my paraphrasing, it’s late and I’m too tired to go look it up). This isn’t a parable either, but I’m pretty sure that He isn’t talking about a carnage-filled Roman-era version of the Jerry Springer show.
None of this can be proven one way or the other, of course. After all, even a militant atheist must admit that once you rewind the universe to the Big Bang, there is a complete annihilation of any information even a trillionth of a second before that event. No scientific (in the descriptive sense) explanation for the origin of the universe can ever be provided.
As far as Muslims go, I have some problems with Islam (although nowhere near as many as the Muslims do). Although I know Muslims who are perfectly nice, gentle human beings, it seems to be that they are to the extent that they ignore large sections of the Koran. The eminent German scholar of Islam (as opposed to Islamic scholar) Christophe Luxembourg, who writes under a pen name because he’s rightly afraid of being murdered by a Muslim, holds that the early parts of the Koran were actually written in Aramaic, and represent a Christian reaching out to the pre-Islamic Arabic world. The later sections are much more rigid and violent. There are two things here that really bother me: 1) Islam is the only one of the major religions that calls on its followers to war on all “unbelievers” until there aren’t any left. Although the Old Testament portrays God instructing the Israelites to wipe out the Hashemites etc., that is very specific to a time and place, and has no bearing on today’s world. 2) In Islamic theology, the Koran is literally the Word of God, dictated straight to Mohammed, and cannot be in error. Muslims who insist that Islam can co-exist peacefully with non-Islamic societies may be perfectly good, sincere individuals, but I’m afraid that they’re not on very firm ground theologically.
Well, I seem to have rambled on quite a bit. There’s my eight cents worth. Thanks for listening. And oh yeah, NUKE THE MOON!
My problems with Evolution:
Evolution teaches that things are “evolving” to a better or more perfect state. Physics says that everything in the universe is degenerating (2nd law of thermo-dynamics). The two don’t seem compatible.
If things are “evolving” they are moving from one state to another…ok…where’s the other state? If we “evolved” from monkeys where are the creatures of the “in-between” steps? They should all still be alive not dead? We didn’t just “evolve” to this state at once!
Evolution is junk science and is being proven so daily!
On the Darwin fish –
I have one on my Volvo wagon in Seattle…but I am a conservative! I consider it camoflage.
As a biologist and a Christian, I have no problem with evolutionary theory. I don’t need a god to explain the physical universe – I need God to explain the moral universe. But the more I study the physical universe, the more magnificent it appears, and the more I credit God for setting it all up in its extraodinarily beautiful way, including evolution.
Evolution IS demonstrated daily. Viruses and bacteria have generation times of 20 minutes, so their evolution into new forms that are resistant to drugs, or forms that can inhabit new species, happens on a timescale humans can directly observe. Insect populations can also become resistant to pesticides within our lifetimes. Evolution is nothing more than a change within populations across generations.
Evolutionary theory is also a great predictor of the patterns that occur between and within living things. And the main job of a scientific theory is to predict.
Some people may choose not to believe evolution, but it IS the grand unifying theory of modern biology. You don’t have to believe it, but you should be greatful that the people at the Center for Disease Control do.
I am rather fond of the Darwin fish. You see, fish with legs were a pretty dramatic development in the history of vertebrates. So I consider the Darwin fish to be a respectful nod to our great Sarcopterygian ancestors, and also to the Fisher of Men.
To Answer USSJimmyCarter –
Your assumptions on evoution and thermodynamics are incomplete. The second law of thermodynamic can be more accuratly stated as “A system tends to disorder without the input of energy”. The energy part is very important (Indeed – all three of the thermodynamic laws deal with energy.) Life on earth can order itself because of the massive input of energy from the sun.
As for evolution driving things to a “more perfect state” – you’re gonna hate this – evolution is actually random. In “Full House:, Stephen J Gould showed that the likelihood that a species’ successor was more complex than its parent is only 50%. Highly complex life forms exist only because there is a “wall” of simplicity below which life forms are no longer organized enough to be alive. Therefore, if you take a hundred billion species over time and graph them by complexity vs number, with a 50-50 chance of a species being more or less complex than its predecessor, you get a graph with a large peak of very simple forms and a long, tiny assymptote of very complex forms.
If you look at living things on earth, the vast majority of species, individuals, and of biomass are simple bacteria. Mammals are a tiny blip at the end of the curve. When humans look at the products of evolution they see mammals; a more impartial look at all of the biota on earth would see a heck of a lot of bacteria.
“In between ” species –
I don’t understand why people think that if one species arises from a previous one, why the previous species has to live on. All species become extinct enventually. Odds are that the older ancestors of a species WILL be extinct. The intermediate forms are often present as fossils.
On the other hand, people wonder why monkeys are still around if “people evolved from monkeys”. The answer is that people and monkeys had a common ancestor long ago, that was kind of a general primate. Some of these evolved into proto-humans, some into proto-monkeys. The rest died off, because the selection pressures that made the proto humans and the proto monkeys successful probably hurt the original general primate.
One thing to remember when you see a squirrel monkey, or a salmon, is that their ancestors didn’t “stop evolving”. Their ancestors played the survival game just as well as ours – that’s why they’re here. A squirrel monkey is well adapted to living in tree canopies, and a salmon is well adapted to living in oceans and rivers. In fact, they are highly evolved to do so, and they are much better at those things than we are.
No species is more “perfect” than another – they are all well adapted to the environments they live in. But environments change, and only the individuals that have some sort of mutation that allows them to survive or capitalize on that change survive to breed.
One might ask, how does all this help us kill terrorists? Which, as we all know, is even more important than nuking the moon!
Just a later point two days after this all started:
I do believe that evolution exists. There’s a ton of evidence to support that, and there’s no real reason to refute it. That being said, I don’t think evolution was invented to start the creation but to keep it going. I think the fall of man necessitated a form of adaption because all the rules changed, hence evolution.
The world, in effect, became unstable (both in nature and human behavior) after the fall. The instability was small at first, but it’s spinning wider and wider until eventually God will say “Enough!” and Christ comes back.
I’m coming to the discussion late but here’s my cent (it’s between paydays and I can’t afford two cents). I consider this a matter of perspective.
Scientific rules are created by man to explain his observations of the world around him. They are not absolute because they each have their exceptions. By the way, is there an according to Hoyle for scientific rules? Darwinism is a form of religion. There are many exceptions that are needed to justify this worldview. Its proponents are just as fervorous in defending their belief and decrying any detractors as simple and unlearned as any religious group in history.
Creationism takes only faith. I don’t have to understand it, I just believe it. I accept that my finite mind is incapable of understanding, explaining, and justifying an infinite and holy God.
I subscribe to the all or nothing approach to scripture. If you start choosing which portions to believe because they fit within your understanding, you soon end up with a bible full of holes instead of a holy bible.
The important point is that you can reconcile who Jesus of Nazareth is to you. I believe that he is the Son of the Living God who spoke the universe into existence. I also believe that He is the only propitiation for our sins and our only hope for redemption.
Some people may call me a simpleton because of my beliefs. I can live with that.
“Life on earth can order itself because of the massive input of energy from the sun.”
Life can “order itself”?
Name one experiment whereby we can observe matter order itself into a functionally complex form. Not a pattern, but a machine that processes raw energy and materials to some specified end.
Then name one experiment whereby we can observe existing life “order itself” a new, complex, functional feature not previously found in the DNA of its parents. Not a recombination of already existing DNA and structures, but completely new stuff.
Science is about what we can prove through observation and peer review. We cannot observe or peer review either creation or evolution.
“Evolution IS demonstrated daily. Viruses and bacteria have generation times of 20 minutes, so their evolution into new forms that are resistant to drugs, or forms that can inhabit new species, happens on a timescale humans can directly observe.”
Can you cite an instance of viral or bacterial “evolution” where there is an increase in genetic information and functional complexity? Better yet, a case where the virus or bacteria became something else entirely? Something more than a virus or a bacteria?
The examples I’m aware of involve either the loss of genetic information, or a slight variation in the expression of existing information. Not new information, new features or forms.
A chloroplast is a fine example of “a machine that processes raw energy and materials to some specified end.” Plants take water, carbon dioxide, and photons, and create sugars.
As for changes observed, I don’t know if any major speciation events among bactieria have been observed. But I have read that at the bottom of the radioactive hole at Three Mile Island, there are colonies of bacteria and yeasts that have evolved to thrive there. The radiation there destroys the observation robots within minuites, but microorganisms from the surrounding environment have evolved to inhabit that harsh new environment in a matter of years.
There are a lot of examples of small speciation events. There is a species of gull that lives all around the north pole – in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia. The Alaskan one can breed with the Canadian one, and the Canadian one can breed with the one from Greenland, and the Greenland one can breed with the one from Russia, but the Russian and the Alaskan ones are sufficiently different that they cannot interbreed. That’s high school biology textbook stuff (which is why I don’t remember the details!)
New features can arise several different ways genetically. Controller genes can mutate slightly, and then they can cause whole segments of DNA to be expressed in radically different ways. In plants, polyploidy (the copying and retention of extra chromosomes) can lead to extra genetic material and lots of large variations very quickly.
The “According to Hoyle” of scientific theories is very simple; it is the scientific method.
It goes:
1) Make an observation.
2) Form a theory.
3) Test the theory in other circumstances. If it passes, test it again.
4) If it fails, modify the theory or form a new theory.
5) Test again – go back to step 3. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until no observations or experiments succeed in disproving your theory.
(Peer review only assesses the validity of your experiments or observations.)
After step 5, you have a pretty solid theory. But for it to be scientific, a theory has to be theoretically able to be disproven.
Evolution could be disproven if we found:
* life forms that didn’t fit the patterns of previous forms,
*a very modern type fossil in a very old fossil bed,
*organisms that didn’t seem to have any genetic link with any other organism,
*if inheritance was demonstrated not to occur.
But so far, it hasn’t happened.