Design or Chance—You Decide

Yesterday I began a series of blogs to alert  you to the ongoing debate between scientists and philosophers who believe in the process of evolution known as natural selection and those who believe in intelligent design. Before going further, it is vital that we distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Basically micro means small and macro means large. Scientists suggest that change beyond the species level is a result of a series of small changes within the species. The idea is that birds with feathers are related to a type of dinosaurs who changed gradually over millennia.


In his book Evolution, Mark Ridley defines the terms thus:

Macroevolution means evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record. It is contrasted with microevolution, the study of evolution over short time periods, such as that of a human lifetime or less. Microevolution therefore refers to changes in gene frequency within a population .... Macroevolutionary events are much more likely to take millions of years. Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution ... or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion .... Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution. (2004: 227)

It is not my intent to explain in detail why Christians have difficulty with macroevolution, especially when talking about the origin of humans. I simply point to two books, one that says we Christians have no problem with evolution and another that says Christianity and evolution are incompatible, because they represent two conflicting world views.

We've all seen charts in textbooks and museums like the following. The operating assumption is that the line of descent between ape and man is a proven scientific fact.

This is what Francisco J. Ayala, an ordained Roman Catholic priest and professor of biology, states in his book Am I A Monkey - Six Big Questions About Evolution,

The "missing link" is no longer missing. The fossil from Java was the first one, but hundreds of fossil remains belonging to hundreds of individual hominids have been discovered in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in Africa, Asia, and Europe and continue to be discovered at an accelerated rate. (Kindle location 92)

...a large amount of genetic material—about 3 percent, or some 90 million DNA letters—has been inserted or deleted since humans and chimps initiated their separate evolutionary ways, 6 to 7 million years ago. (Kindle location 152)

For Ayala there is no conflict between evolution and the Christian faith. He quotes Pope John Paul II in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Oct. 22, 1996: "New scientific knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis" (Kindle location 655-62). Evolutionary science explains how things happened. Religion leads us to praise the Creator who has put the process of evolution into place. The two operate in distinct fields of knowledge. They do not conflict with one another. Read his book for a more complete statement of his beliefs.

Now back to William Demski and Jonathan Witt in Intelligent Design Uncensored. I referred to them in my blog just prior to this one. They demonstrate that macroevolution simply cannot and does not happen. For humans to evolve from monkeys, genes must have mutated to build significant amounts of new functional information. As Ayala says, "some 90 million DNA letters have been inserted or deleted since humans and chimps" went their separate evolutionary ways—or did they? Demski and Witt point out that this kind of thing does not happen on the cellular level. They point to recent studies of the common bacterium E. coli, found in human stomachs. These experiments indicate that it is "easier for evolution to break things than make things" (Kindle location 707). Mutations generally do not work. The new information needed to make a new species (monkeys become man) cannot come from mutated genes. Mutations bring changes, but add no new needed information.

Their point: if the creation of new DNA information does not happen at the micro level of the cell, it certainly cannot happen on the macro level so that one species becomes an entirely new species, even allowing for millions of years to pass. For the development of new DNA information on the cellular level there had to be an Intelligent Designer at work. Therefore monkeys did not turn into humans, regardless of how many millions of years you give them and their DNA randomly to change. That 3 percent difference says it all.

Think about the implications. The science is not there. Macroevolution faces some huge difficulties. The old assumptions do not work, in spite of what Professor Ayala, Pope John Paul II and many others say. It's time to take another look at Intelligent Design. It's time to realize that our Creator is intimately at work in everything that is. The Apostle John puts it this way as he speaks about Christ,

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17). 

 

In The Beginning God?

A number of things came together this week, as they often do if I'm paying attention. It started with my son asking me if I'd read Ray Kurzweil's latest book, The Singularity Is Near. When I said I knew something of Kurzweil's work and views, but had not read the book, he ordered it from Amazon and had it forwarded to me.

Then after worship last Sunday Ryan, a college student, asked my views on creation versus evolution. We discussed the topic briefly and I promised to send him a paper I'd written a few years back about the age of the earth.

Finally, I read in the newspaper that Kurzweil and Apple's co-founder, Steve Wozniak, were among the speakers here at the Houston area's first Up Experience conference in Stafford.

Finally, my copy of God After Darwin:A Theology of Evolution by John F. Haught arrived in the mail and I began to page through it. You might want to read Michael Behe's review of the book.

So what ties all this together? A number of things.

Kurzweil is an out and out materialist. The universe (or multiple universes) is all there is. And it is because it is. How it came to be we may not know, but it is and we know it exists. We can consider God, he writes, to be the universe and this universe is not conscious. Being conscious is the same as being spiritual, which is to say that you or I have an awareness that we are persons. And ultimately, if I read him right, through the process known as evolution the entire universe will move toward greater and greater complexity, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, etc. Thus the universe is on the path to becoming 'God'!

I must say that such thoughts make me weary and very, very lonely.

Oh, one more thing about Kurzweil. He says that the singularity we are approaching is that time when humans will transcend or go beyond biology. That's not to say we won't want bodies, but he claims it will be but one of many options as we move toward reverse engineering the human brain and body, depositing it into our computers. Aha! The day approaches when we'll be able to "Beam me up, Scotty" anywhere we like. Are you a Star Trek fan? We'll also be able to duplicate ourselves as many times as we may wish. Unfortunately, Kurzweil says, each clone will be just a bit different from the other.

Then, along comes Steve Wozniak at the Up Conference, saying that the days of robots that can do entire tasks on their own are far away. "I don't think we're close. I don't think we've gone one step." He was talking about artificial intelligence (AI), something that Kurzweil claims is but a couple decades away.

Well, who's right? And what do we make of all this? Enter John Haught. I've only begun to read his book, but he has some intriguing things to say. Neo-Darwinians don't need God to create life and consciousness. Life comes by chance over millions upon millions of years. Evolutionary time provides room, he says, for an unimaginable number of purely undirected genetic mutations to occur. Out of these many mutations natural selection (survival of the fittest) gradually brought about adaptive living beings. Eventually these beings included those endowed with minds and consciousness.

How's that for a statement of faith? Mind you, Haught is a creationist. He believes in a creator. However, he wants us all to be aware of what we're tackling when we take on neo-evolution. One of his major points is that a universe that evolves from "dumb matter" must be intrinsically pointless. Inanimate matter is the meaningless material under any so-called higher levels of life. So it finally is all meaningless. Like Solomon writes in Ecclesiastes, "All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. I hated all things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me."

Unless, of course, Kurzweil is right. He's been very busy taking care of his poorly evolved body so that in a couple decades he can download the whole thing into some wondrous computer and become eternal. He takes a whole handful of supplements every day to keep it functioning until the singularity arrives. He's hoping that Wozniak is wrong about AI not really even being at the beginning.



On the other hand, what if Kurzweil and his kind are wrong? What if there's more to it than the matter/energy universe? What if there really is a God who made it all and gives it meaning and purpose and directs it toward a goal? What if the human soul survives death and must stand before this God to give an answer to how he or she lived? What if?

I believe this second option is truly worth considering. Dr. Bert Thompson wrote "Creation—Will It Stand the “Test of Science?." You might want to read his article. He quotes Dr. Henry Morris: “The Second Law of thermodynamics requires the universe to have had a beginning.” That is to say that while quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy. It's all winding down and it all had to have had a beginning. Nothing comes from nothing. What IS absolutely requires a Creator!

Well, there you have it. I'm winding down too--for today. Enough of this stuff. My energy is winding down. I need to eat something in order to keep going. And all of it depends upon the goodness of my Creator. Oh give thanks unto the Lord, for He is good and His mercy endures forever!

I Still Believe In Original Sin

Recently I was listening to one of the candidates for president in this country. He was proclaiming himself the one who can bring renewal, hope and a new beginning. He will unite us and bring us a new destiny. As I said to some friends, his speech gave me stomach cramps. It was all because I don't believe any president can or ever will be able to offer what this one promises.

Why the pessimism? It is because I believe in original sin. Now there's a concept that is rejected by religious people and the scientific community alike, particularly those who espouse the theory of evolution. You cannot believe in macro evolution and in original sin at the same time.

Permit me to explain.

I'll start with original sin.

The New England Primer written before 1680 by Edward Taylor summarized the teaching with the ditty "In Adam's fall we sinned all." What that teaching suggests is that we all bear a common lineage, regardless of race, gender or nationality. In our human nature we completely lack any good in spiritual, divine things. We are all descended from Adam and Eve, a real couple who disobeyed God and were banished from the Garden of Eden. And so we do not seek God, nor do we love Him. It is rather our nature to create and worship other gods. We are, in fact, enemies of God and of all that He would teach us to believe in. It is another way of saying that God's image has been corrupted. In heart, soul, mind, heart and will we are opposed to God and to the doing of His will. This is our nature.

But wait, wait, you're saying to me. How can that be? Think of all the fine, noble and wonderful things men do. They're certainly not all done by Christians. They're done even by atheists. Yes, even people who believe in no god at all give money to the poor, support hospitals and numerous causes that promote the well-being of mankind.

And what about the wondrous progress of science? As you yourself admit, not all who devote their lives to that pursuit are followers and believers in Jesus Christ. Yet, they have brought us hundreds of advancements in medical science, agriculture, transportation, physics, etc. The astounding list goes on and on. In fact, old man, you wouldn't even be around any longer if you'd come down with pneumonia, appendicitis and some other ailments you've recovered from if you'd lived a hundred or so years ago. The discoveries of modern medicine have been used to keep you alive to write this article.

You're right, of course. In natural and external things that are subject to reason we humans still possesses a measure of power, and ability. That's the amazing and wondrous thing about us. The image of God is still reflected within us, though greatly weakened. According to God's blessing, we still have the power to "be fruitful and increase in number." We still have the command to "fill the earth and subdue it." We still retain His mandate to "rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28).

We have seen some astounding discoveries in the past century. They continue, thanks to human science and the use of reason. But even this reason is corrupt! We do not love the Lord God with our minds. I cannot imagine what it would be like if we did and if our mental facilities were free from the corruption of sin.



But, but, but . . . What about all the astounding discoveries of paleontology and archeology? What about the famous Lucy fossil? What about homo erectus, Neanderthal skulls and all that other stuff that is taught in grade schools and high schools across our country? What about Mary, Louis and Richard Leakey? What about all that you old, out-of-touch, seventeenth-century-thinking man? What about evolution?

Tell you what. Are you willing to do a little online reading? Read what Ray Bohlin writes in his article "Human Fossils - 'Just So' Stories of Apes and Humans." He suggests that "Effects of the ice age, constant cloud cover (preventing Vitamin D formation leading to rickets), largely vegetarian and uncooked diet, and expression of local genetic variation could readily account for the many different, yet anatomically related human forms" that have been labeled as evolutionary steps toward the progressive march of evolution.

There are, of course, many other articles available. Consider the Creation Research Article "Beyond Scientific Creationism," published in December, 2004. The authors conclude,

"As time passes, it becomes evident to more people that issues of origins have more to do with worldviews than with science. The focus of the Intelligent Design movement on evolution has been especially telling, and the outmoded ideal of the white-coated, objective investigator with an answer for every question has slipped into the past."

Do your own research. Read the writings of Philip Johnson, William Demski, Michael Denton, Michael Behe and a growing host of others involved in the Intelligent Design movement and the debate about the origins of this world and all things living on it. And if you believe in the Risen Christ, the Second Adam, as I do, you too may end up being more than a little pessimistic about the powers of any politician, philosopher, orator or scientist to usher in the great, new perfect world. That world will only come when our Lord returns in all His power to restore what He created to its original glory.