The Evolution Refuted video, from Answers in Genesis, (AIG) a leading Young-Earth Creationist organization, was published in 2011, but I hadn't seen it until recently. (The video is a little over two and a half minutes long.) I'd like to muse about it.
Evolution Refuted makes two claims:
1) "Fact One: There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code."
2) "Life has never been observed to come from non-life."
Let me consider these claims, in reverse order.
Life from non-life
My own position is that life would not be present on earth without God's activity, however and whenever that was.
The second claim is true, but trivial. Either life has always been present, since the beginning of the universe, or it somehow came to be, from non-life. Few, if any, people believe the first alternative. The second is true, whether or not anyone observed this. The claim, quoted above, includes not only natural processes (if any such exist) but God's creative actions. Neither of these have been observed. Does AIG wish to claim that God didn't create, because no one observed it? Surely not.
The claim stands in for a more specific, less trivial claim, which was not expressed in the video. That claim is that life can't come from non-life by natural means. Perhaps not. Perhaps it can. We can't observe the entire biosphere all the time. Far from it. It is possible that, somewhere, perhaps in an ocean, a microscopic new living thing has just come into existence, from non-living precursors. If that were to happen, how would we know this? How could we be sure, in the very unlikely event that we found the resulting living organism, that it didn't descend from some previously unknown type, that's been around for a long time? If a new living thing really came to be, in this way, most likely it would not be as good at obtaining energy, reproducing, and protecting itself, as organisms that have been around for a while in the same location, and subject to adaptation and natural selection. So, most likely, it would quickly go extinct, and we would never know of its existence.
(For all we know, God is creating some new form of life right now, somewhere, as far as that goes. We can't really disprove that!)
Can life come from non-life by natural means? As I said, maybe, maybe not. If it did, it couldn't be through natural selection, the mechanism of evolution. (Natural selection really does exist. There's no reasonable argument about that, but there are arguments about its power. See below.) Natural selection requires reproduction, and variety in the offspring. Non-living entities don't reproduce.
What AIG is really against is not exactly evolution. Evolution, through natural selection, is a fact, for example in the descent of different racial groups from the original human stock. The Bible teaches that. AIG is really against two ideas. One of them is the idea that the earth is billions of years old, rather than a few thousand years old. The other is naturalism. (See here and here for a discussion of the Young-Earth part of Young-Earth Creationism.) Naturalism should be opposed, and is opposed by most Christians, and others. Even if things take place through natural processes, that doesn't mean that God didn't create the processes.
So, for the first claim, the video is really against the possibility of living things arising from non-living by natural means. As indicated above, the claim that this has never been observed is correct. But AIG accepts God's creative activity, and that hasn't been observed, either. But what if natural processes really can be observed to bring about life from non-life? What if, in some yet-to-be-invented experimental system, life is observed to come from a mixture of non-living substances? So what if this did happen? The Bible doesn't rule this out, and it was God who planned for the Carbon atoms that are central to life, and, somehow, brought them into being. It was God who planned for, and brought into existence, the processes, the energy, the substances, necessary for life. Such a discovery would not rule out God's creativity and intelligence.
New genetic information
What about the second claim, which is that new genetic information can't be added to an organism's genome?
One proposed mechanism for this is by duplication, followed by mutation. For example, there are four different globin proteins in humans, including hemoglobin. This article has a table, comparing the amino acids (building blocks of protein) found in all four of them. The table indicates that the four different proteins are similar in their make-up, and scientists believe that all four of them descended from an organism that had only one gene for hemoglobin, but, over time, that gene was duplicated, due to some error in copying, and, once a second (or, eventually, in another organism, a third or fourth) copy existed, it was not critical to the organism, since the first one was still present, so changes in the second copy weren't selected against, and, eventually, it produced a protein with a somewhat different function, because changes eventually led to organisms with these changes were selected for. There are a number of genetic systems where the same thing seems to have happened. New genes, with new genetic information, have become critical to the life of organisms. Can we prove that God didn't specially create these four hemoglobins? No, of course not. But natural processes can explain the existence of similar, but different, functional genes from a single gene ancestor. The AIG claim is really that there is no way this could have happened, without a miracle. All that is needed to refute that claim is to show that there are such mechanisms.
Besides new genes arising by duplication, it is also possible for new functions, from new or modified genes, to arise by mutation. One example is the rise of the ability to use citrate (see also here) in an experimental population of bacteria.
See here for more on the addition of information to an organism's genome.
AIG's claim is really that there is no way that genetic information could be added to an organism's genome, except by Divine action. That claim is false.
In summary, at best, the claims of the AIG video are over-simplistic. At worst, one of those claims is false. Thanks for reading.
Musings on science, the Bible, and fantastic literature (and sometimes basketball and other stuff).
God speaks to us through the Bible and the findings of science, and we should listen to both types of revelation.
The title is from Psalm 84:11.
The Wikipedia is usually a pretty good reference. I mostly use the World English Bible (WEB), because it is public domain. I am grateful.
License
I have written an e-book, Does the Bible Really Say That?, which is free to anyone. To download that book, in several formats, go here.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
Showing posts with label naturalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label naturalism. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Thursday, May 01, 2014
Hawking's Grand Design and God's Not Dead
Stephen Hawking is one of the best-known scientists of our time. When he retired, he was occupying the same professorial chair that Isaac Newton once did. He is also an outspoken atheist.
In 2010, Hawking, in collaboration with Leonard Mlodinow, wrote The Grand Design, which became a best-seller, in spite of its non-fiction status and scientific content. The book argues that it is not necessary to suppose that God created the universe. It also says that "philosophy is dead," and suggests that the search for a unified field theory is futile, so it isn't exactly shy about attacking significant ideas. What they seem to mean by "philosophy is dead" is that some philosophers are not willing to agree with them on all points.
The Grand Design was referred to in the recent movie, God's Not Dead. (See here for my review of that film. That review includes the pivotal quotation from The Grand Design, which was used in the movie. That quotation is the second and third sentences from the second quotation from the book, below.) God's Not Dead did not claim that the existence of God can be proved, but that His existence cannot be disproved. The Grand Design doesn't disprove God's existence, although the authors seem to think that it does, or that it almost does.
As indicated above, Hawking and Mlodinow weren't bashful. They claim, on page 32, that "recent experiments" have shown that our brains operate according to physical laws. There are no notes in the book, so I don't know what experiments they were referring to, but never mind. What other laws would our brains operate by? They claim that, because our brains operate by physical laws, "[f]ree will is an illusion," (p. 32) but are willing for us to act as if we really did have free will. That's a good thing, because if we don't have free will, Hawking and Mlodinow didn't, either, and they therefore believe the things that they do, not because they are true, but because of the physical laws operating in their brains. (And, by the way, if that discussion isn't a matter for philosophy, I don't know what is.)
The fundamental argument of The Grand Design is that there are really many, very many universes, according to M-theory, and that we exist in one of those that is compatible with life. All those universes came into being somehow, and here we are, in this one, the result of a cosmic accident. There are some serious problems with this notion. One of them is that even Hawking and Mlodinow aren't sure what M-theory is:
No one seems to know what the "M" stands for, but it may be "master," "miracle," or "mystery." It seems to be all three. People are still trying to decipher the nature of M-theory, but that may not be possible. It could be that the physicist's traditional expectation of a single theory of nature is untenable, and there exists no single formulation. It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so long as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that is, whenever they can both be applied. (p. 117)
The above is a quotation from the book. That quotation indicates that, whatever M-theory might be, if it is true here, it isn't true elsewhere. That, and their fuzzy description, don't inspire confidence in science based on M-theory.
Another serious problem is that there is no experimental proof for M-theory and its relatives. Granted, a few decades ago, there was no experimental proof for quarks, which were proposed as a way of making sense out of the many types of sub-atomic particles then thought to exist, and, hence, there was skepticism about their existence. But that skepticism has largely disappeared, and there is experimental evidence for the existence of quarks. However, quarks, so far as we know, are the same everywhere in the universe. Quark theory didn't propose that there were different kinds of quarks, or no quarks at all, in other universes. It's not clear that, even if other universes exist, we can access them in any way, which would be necessary, I think, to vindicate M-theory.
Then there's the matter of gravity.
Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. [Chapter Title - "Choosing Our Universe."] Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. (p. 180.)
But why is there gravity? If they explain that, I missed it, or didn't understand it. And even if gravity had the power to make the universe create itself from nothing, wouldn't the powers of gravity be different in all the other different universes, according to their own thesis? So why should other universes exist?
Another serious problem is that scientists, and others, are not universally in agreement with Hawking and Mlodinow's central idea, mostly because of the first two serious problems indicated above.
Peter Woit, of Columbia University, has written a severely critical review of The Grand Design. Woit wrote:
I’m in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you’re the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me. . . . [T]hinking about it, [I] have to admit that the kind of pseudo-science going on here and being promoted in this book isn’t obviously any better than the faith-based explanations of how the world works favored by conventional religions.
Well put, except that there shouldn't be "science/religion wars." If we really understood God's revelation in Christ, in the Bible, through the church, and in nature (which science unfolds for us) we would see that our existence is best explained by accepting, by faith, that God planned for our universe, and us, to exist. See Hebrews 11:3, which is quoted in the graphic at the top of this post.
I know of no evidence that Woit is a Christian. For other criticisms of the book, see its Wikipedia article.
See also the recent opinion piece in Time, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God."
Thanks for reading!
In 2010, Hawking, in collaboration with Leonard Mlodinow, wrote The Grand Design, which became a best-seller, in spite of its non-fiction status and scientific content. The book argues that it is not necessary to suppose that God created the universe. It also says that "philosophy is dead," and suggests that the search for a unified field theory is futile, so it isn't exactly shy about attacking significant ideas. What they seem to mean by "philosophy is dead" is that some philosophers are not willing to agree with them on all points.
The Grand Design was referred to in the recent movie, God's Not Dead. (See here for my review of that film. That review includes the pivotal quotation from The Grand Design, which was used in the movie. That quotation is the second and third sentences from the second quotation from the book, below.) God's Not Dead did not claim that the existence of God can be proved, but that His existence cannot be disproved. The Grand Design doesn't disprove God's existence, although the authors seem to think that it does, or that it almost does.
As indicated above, Hawking and Mlodinow weren't bashful. They claim, on page 32, that "recent experiments" have shown that our brains operate according to physical laws. There are no notes in the book, so I don't know what experiments they were referring to, but never mind. What other laws would our brains operate by? They claim that, because our brains operate by physical laws, "[f]ree will is an illusion," (p. 32) but are willing for us to act as if we really did have free will. That's a good thing, because if we don't have free will, Hawking and Mlodinow didn't, either, and they therefore believe the things that they do, not because they are true, but because of the physical laws operating in their brains. (And, by the way, if that discussion isn't a matter for philosophy, I don't know what is.)
The fundamental argument of The Grand Design is that there are really many, very many universes, according to M-theory, and that we exist in one of those that is compatible with life. All those universes came into being somehow, and here we are, in this one, the result of a cosmic accident. There are some serious problems with this notion. One of them is that even Hawking and Mlodinow aren't sure what M-theory is:
No one seems to know what the "M" stands for, but it may be "master," "miracle," or "mystery." It seems to be all three. People are still trying to decipher the nature of M-theory, but that may not be possible. It could be that the physicist's traditional expectation of a single theory of nature is untenable, and there exists no single formulation. It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so long as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that is, whenever they can both be applied. (p. 117)
The above is a quotation from the book. That quotation indicates that, whatever M-theory might be, if it is true here, it isn't true elsewhere. That, and their fuzzy description, don't inspire confidence in science based on M-theory.
Another serious problem is that there is no experimental proof for M-theory and its relatives. Granted, a few decades ago, there was no experimental proof for quarks, which were proposed as a way of making sense out of the many types of sub-atomic particles then thought to exist, and, hence, there was skepticism about their existence. But that skepticism has largely disappeared, and there is experimental evidence for the existence of quarks. However, quarks, so far as we know, are the same everywhere in the universe. Quark theory didn't propose that there were different kinds of quarks, or no quarks at all, in other universes. It's not clear that, even if other universes exist, we can access them in any way, which would be necessary, I think, to vindicate M-theory.
Then there's the matter of gravity.
Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. [Chapter Title - "Choosing Our Universe."] Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. (p. 180.)
But why is there gravity? If they explain that, I missed it, or didn't understand it. And even if gravity had the power to make the universe create itself from nothing, wouldn't the powers of gravity be different in all the other different universes, according to their own thesis? So why should other universes exist?
Another serious problem is that scientists, and others, are not universally in agreement with Hawking and Mlodinow's central idea, mostly because of the first two serious problems indicated above.
Peter Woit, of Columbia University, has written a severely critical review of The Grand Design. Woit wrote:
I’m in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you’re the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me. . . . [T]hinking about it, [I] have to admit that the kind of pseudo-science going on here and being promoted in this book isn’t obviously any better than the faith-based explanations of how the world works favored by conventional religions.
Well put, except that there shouldn't be "science/religion wars." If we really understood God's revelation in Christ, in the Bible, through the church, and in nature (which science unfolds for us) we would see that our existence is best explained by accepting, by faith, that God planned for our universe, and us, to exist. See Hebrews 11:3, which is quoted in the graphic at the top of this post.
I know of no evidence that Woit is a Christian. For other criticisms of the book, see its Wikipedia article.
See also the recent opinion piece in Time, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God."
Thanks for reading!
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Could God have used physical processes and other agencies in Creation?
I recently received this comment on a post in my blog:
Evolustion [sic] supports God created physic laws. Physic laws caused all the living things to come into existence. It turned up that physic laws were the creators since they were those that caused all living things to be created.
Evolution supports that God created physic laws to cause space and time to work together in order to create this universe. God only guided space and time to cause the universe to be in existence. Who were the creators? Space and time were the creators. But not God since He was just the helper to ensure the space and time to work towards the formation of this universe.
I have quoted the comment exactly, so as not to alter the thought of the commenter. Previous communication from the commenter indicates that English is not his first language. I've tried to understand what the commenter wants to know, and will respond accordingly.
What he seems to be disturbed about is the idea that God allowed the physical properties of the universe to carry out some creation processes. I hope I have that right.
I have several comments:
1) I believe that the commenter really means naturalism, not evolution. Evolution, properly, relates to changes in living things. There are no evolutionary explanations, in the sense of Darwinian natural selection, for the origin of the universe, or of the heavenly bodies as they now are, because natural selection is biological, and those phenomena are not. Naturalism, by definition, rejects the very existence of a supernatural God, in the origin of life, and the origin of the universe.
2) I suppose that the commenter didn't mean that first sentence, or didn't mean it as it reads. Naturalists don't believe that God created physical laws.
3) Even for a naturalist, there is no good explanation for the existence of space and time, or for the existence or properties of the four forces of nature, although explanations have been sought for a century or so. A supernaturalist, and I am one such, simply believes that God created space, time, and the four forces, and other properties and constants relating to the universe. A naturalist, of course, does not consider that to be a good explanation. Note Hebrews 11:3 "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." (World English Bible, public domain. All scripture quotations are from that version.)
4) Just because a naturalist claims that space and time brought about the present universe naturally doesn't mean that they did. It also doesn't rule out the possibility that God could have used space and time.
5) We aren't capable of understanding how God created, except very superficially. If, for example, we believe that light came about instantaneously because God spoke, what words and language did He use? Did He speak aloud? Was "God" God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, or all of them? Was anyone listening? Was light created from something else, or did it just appear? Did it appear throughout the entire universe at the same time? We don't know the answer to these questions, and many others, and aren't going to. If we understood these things fully, we would, in effect, be gods, and we aren't.
6) I fail to see how a God who is capable of planning for "space and time" (and whatever else) so that they worked together to bring about the universe as it is now, if that is what happened, diminishes the divinity of God in any way. I don't see how such events would make God into "just a helper." If anything, such planning and creation shows the intelligence and wisdom of the Creator.
7) Consider the deliverance from Egypt. In Exodus 4, and elsewhere, a rod is mentioned as an agent used by Moses and Aaron in performing miracles. (Most or all scriptural references to this rod may be found here.) But was the rod the miracle worker, and God "just a helper?" Hardly. Psalm 78 recaps the story of the deliverance of the Israelites, in a fair amount of detail. The rod is not so much as mentioned. (Neither is Moses!) The rod was not the miracle worker. But God is mentioned, over and over, and He is the one who got the glory from the deliverance from Egypt. God prepared a rod which could be used by Moses and Aaron to carry out His will, but that only shows God's greatness, rather than diminishing it. If space and time worked to carry out God's will, that only shows God's creative ability.
Thanks for reading.
Evolustion [sic] supports God created physic laws. Physic laws caused all the living things to come into existence. It turned up that physic laws were the creators since they were those that caused all living things to be created.
Evolution supports that God created physic laws to cause space and time to work together in order to create this universe. God only guided space and time to cause the universe to be in existence. Who were the creators? Space and time were the creators. But not God since He was just the helper to ensure the space and time to work towards the formation of this universe.
I have quoted the comment exactly, so as not to alter the thought of the commenter. Previous communication from the commenter indicates that English is not his first language. I've tried to understand what the commenter wants to know, and will respond accordingly.
What he seems to be disturbed about is the idea that God allowed the physical properties of the universe to carry out some creation processes. I hope I have that right.
I have several comments:
1) I believe that the commenter really means naturalism, not evolution. Evolution, properly, relates to changes in living things. There are no evolutionary explanations, in the sense of Darwinian natural selection, for the origin of the universe, or of the heavenly bodies as they now are, because natural selection is biological, and those phenomena are not. Naturalism, by definition, rejects the very existence of a supernatural God, in the origin of life, and the origin of the universe.
2) I suppose that the commenter didn't mean that first sentence, or didn't mean it as it reads. Naturalists don't believe that God created physical laws.
3) Even for a naturalist, there is no good explanation for the existence of space and time, or for the existence or properties of the four forces of nature, although explanations have been sought for a century or so. A supernaturalist, and I am one such, simply believes that God created space, time, and the four forces, and other properties and constants relating to the universe. A naturalist, of course, does not consider that to be a good explanation. Note Hebrews 11:3 "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." (World English Bible, public domain. All scripture quotations are from that version.)
4) Just because a naturalist claims that space and time brought about the present universe naturally doesn't mean that they did. It also doesn't rule out the possibility that God could have used space and time.
5) We aren't capable of understanding how God created, except very superficially. If, for example, we believe that light came about instantaneously because God spoke, what words and language did He use? Did He speak aloud? Was "God" God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, or all of them? Was anyone listening? Was light created from something else, or did it just appear? Did it appear throughout the entire universe at the same time? We don't know the answer to these questions, and many others, and aren't going to. If we understood these things fully, we would, in effect, be gods, and we aren't.
6) I fail to see how a God who is capable of planning for "space and time" (and whatever else) so that they worked together to bring about the universe as it is now, if that is what happened, diminishes the divinity of God in any way. I don't see how such events would make God into "just a helper." If anything, such planning and creation shows the intelligence and wisdom of the Creator.
7) Consider the deliverance from Egypt. In Exodus 4, and elsewhere, a rod is mentioned as an agent used by Moses and Aaron in performing miracles. (Most or all scriptural references to this rod may be found here.) But was the rod the miracle worker, and God "just a helper?" Hardly. Psalm 78 recaps the story of the deliverance of the Israelites, in a fair amount of detail. The rod is not so much as mentioned. (Neither is Moses!) The rod was not the miracle worker. But God is mentioned, over and over, and He is the one who got the glory from the deliverance from Egypt. God prepared a rod which could be used by Moses and Aaron to carry out His will, but that only shows God's greatness, rather than diminishing it. If space and time worked to carry out God's will, that only shows God's creative ability.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Methodological Naturalism and Robert Boyle - does God create a vacuum, or is it a natural phenomenon?
Naturalism is, more or less, the idea that there is no supernatural, or, if there is, it doesn't do anything. It's what most people are upset about if they are upset about evolution.
Methodological naturalism is, more or less, the idea that we shouldn't look for supernatural explanations for ordinary events, including long-term events, or a long series of events. Some scientists who practice methodological naturalism are atheists. Some are not, claiming that God has created the universe such that certain processes occur without any further intervention being necessary. (I'll not discuss miracles, except to say that, by definition, they require supernatural intervention, and are mostly, or entirely, one-of-a-kind events.)
If there's a way to experimentally differentiate between natural causes and supernatural causes for, say, ice melting, I don't know what it is. It's always possible to claim that God was specifically at work in such a process, hence it was not natural, or not only natural.
Intelligent Design is the idea that, more or less, natural selection can't have been responsible for the development of living things, and the various processes within them, because natural selection is not capable of creating such processes or organisms by selection of random events. There are people who believe in Intelligent Design who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and people who agree about Intelligent Design who believe that the earth is much older than that. (Intelligent Design is also a political movement, attempting to have ideas about God's creative power included in public school science classes. Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design wants to do that.)
Michael Behe is the most prominent scientist claiming that God has acted many times, so as to produce intricate systems in living things. Most, or all, of Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have been refuted, as scientists have shown that his examples have a chain of natural selection events which could have produced them. This doesn't mean that Behe is entirely wrong, but the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is slim, at best, according to Behe, himself.
Lest there be any doubt, I believe in a God who designed the universe, and either acts in many small ways, in nature, all the time, or made nature the way it is, so that change and complex phenomena could be possible. I also believe that the scientific evidence to prove, or disprove, God's activity is lacking, and that either conclusion requires faith. See Hebrews 11:3.
A recent post by the BioLogos Forum indicates that the question of whether a Christian scientist can be a methodological naturalist is pretty old. Robert Boyle -- the one Boyle's Law is named for -- died in 1691. The post, which is quite readable, and by a historian of science, indicates that Boyle believed that a vacuum could occur naturally, without supernatural intervention, but a contemporary begged to differ. Boyle was not only an important scientist, but definitely a Christian.
Read the post. Thanks for reading this!
Methodological naturalism is, more or less, the idea that we shouldn't look for supernatural explanations for ordinary events, including long-term events, or a long series of events. Some scientists who practice methodological naturalism are atheists. Some are not, claiming that God has created the universe such that certain processes occur without any further intervention being necessary. (I'll not discuss miracles, except to say that, by definition, they require supernatural intervention, and are mostly, or entirely, one-of-a-kind events.)
If there's a way to experimentally differentiate between natural causes and supernatural causes for, say, ice melting, I don't know what it is. It's always possible to claim that God was specifically at work in such a process, hence it was not natural, or not only natural.
Intelligent Design is the idea that, more or less, natural selection can't have been responsible for the development of living things, and the various processes within them, because natural selection is not capable of creating such processes or organisms by selection of random events. There are people who believe in Intelligent Design who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and people who agree about Intelligent Design who believe that the earth is much older than that. (Intelligent Design is also a political movement, attempting to have ideas about God's creative power included in public school science classes. Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design wants to do that.)
Michael Behe is the most prominent scientist claiming that God has acted many times, so as to produce intricate systems in living things. Most, or all, of Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have been refuted, as scientists have shown that his examples have a chain of natural selection events which could have produced them. This doesn't mean that Behe is entirely wrong, but the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is slim, at best, according to Behe, himself.
Lest there be any doubt, I believe in a God who designed the universe, and either acts in many small ways, in nature, all the time, or made nature the way it is, so that change and complex phenomena could be possible. I also believe that the scientific evidence to prove, or disprove, God's activity is lacking, and that either conclusion requires faith. See Hebrews 11:3.
A recent post by the BioLogos Forum indicates that the question of whether a Christian scientist can be a methodological naturalist is pretty old. Robert Boyle -- the one Boyle's Law is named for -- died in 1691. The post, which is quite readable, and by a historian of science, indicates that Boyle believed that a vacuum could occur naturally, without supernatural intervention, but a contemporary begged to differ. Boyle was not only an important scientist, but definitely a Christian.
Read the post. Thanks for reading this!
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Big Bang, second edition
I understand that there are conservative Christians who reject the
idea of a Big Bang. I suppose that most of these, at least the ones who
can give a good reason for such rejection, do so either because they
believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or because, in
their minds, the Big Bang is associated with evolution, which they
reject.
As to the first, it is possible, indeed, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. (But see this post, and others, on a book by a believing Christian, scientist, and Bible scholar, David Snoke, entitled A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.) Even if the earth were only a few thousand years old, the Bible does not explicitly say that the universe is the same age as the earth. I don't see anything in the Bible that would rule out an ancient universe.
I also take two Biblical statements seriously. These are Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20, both of which tell us that one of God's ways of revealing himself to us is through what nature tells us. Much of what nature tells us, especially about things which are very small, very large, or very far away, or were very long ago, can come to us only though scientific findings. These findings may be mistaken at times, but they should certainly not be rejected out of hand. There is good scientific evidence that there was a Big Bang, and that it took place a very long time ago.
The Big Bang was not proposed as some sort of anti-God crusade. On the contrary, the first good evidence for a Big Bang was discovered by accident, by scientists who weren't looking for such evidence. The Big Bang, as an explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it, is taken by some scientists, even unbelieving scientists, as evidence for the existence of a divine Creator. For example, here's what the late Robert Jastrow wrote, about the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang, in his book, God and the Astronomers:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (New York: Warner Books, 1978, pp. 105-106.) Jastrow, according to the Wikipedia article on him, was not a Christian, but an agnostic. However, he believed that science had no explanation for what came before, or caused, the Big Bang, and acknowledged that the Judeo-Christian religions do have an explanation, namely that an eternal God began the universe with a supernatural act, or acts, such as the Big Bang. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, as Jastrow indicated, there were scientists who were pretty upset about the idea, because there was no good explanation for what caused it, or what, if anything, came before it. There still isn't an explanation that has been proved experimentally, although there have been attempts at such explanations, most notably by Stephen Hawking.
Acceptance of the idea of a Big Bang was slow. The evidence for a Big Bang is good, considering how long ago it would have happened, and the idea is accepted by most scientists. The evidence for it, to me, is an important part of God's revelation to us.
As to the connection to evolution, there is no direct connection. In the first place, evolution, like any controversial subject, should be defined before it is discussed at all. This, unfortunately, happens only rarely. In the second place, evolution is a biological process. The Big Bang was a physical process.
What Christians should be concerned about, even if they have the wrong name for it, is not evolution, but naturalism. That's what most conservative Christians really mean when they say that they don't believe in evolution. (There is good evidence, generally accepted, for at least some types of evolution. The most ardent Young-Earth Creationist scientists believe that humans evolved into more than one race, or ethnic group*, since the time of Noah, for example.) Naturalism is the idea that there are natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations for everything. It is, therefore, a form of atheism. Naturalism is believed by many scientists, and others, although there is no definitive evidence for it. The most prominent naturalist is Richard Dawkins, a competent biologist, but also a popular writer, crusading against Christianity and other religions. But even Dawkins does not claim that he has disproved God's existence, which, if he had, would prove naturalism.
The Bible begins with a statement that, if true, destroys naturalism: In the beginning, God created . . . Genesis 1 doesn't tell us when, why, or how. It does tell us that there was a Who. Naturalism says that there wasn't, and isn't, any Who. Christians believe that there was, and is. Undoubtedly, some people who believe in naturalism do so because, if it were true, it would mean that there are no Divinely created moral laws, and they want to believe that there aren't any such.
If someone says that the Big Bang event proves that there is no God, they are mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, supposing that God started the universe with a Big Bang makes good sense. If someone says that evolution, however defined, proves that there is no God, they are similarly mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, God may have used natural selection, the Big Bang, or both, as part of His method of making things like they are now. Knowledge and prior planning like that would be as wonderful, or more so, as creating every type of atom, and every type of living thing, from scratch.
It's not the Bible, but the movie, God's Not Dead, was generally well-received by the conservative Christian community. (The more recent movie, Do You Believe? was made by the same group, and there was also a God's Not Dead 2.) See here for my review of God's not Dead. In that review, I point out that the fictional main Christian character accepts the ideas that God used the Big Bang, and evolution to bring the world to its current state, in his defense of the existence of God.
As Hebrews 11 puts it: 3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible (World English Bible, public domain).
Some Christians, and others, claim that atheists/naturalists have no ground for finding purpose and meaning in life, or in existence. This article claims they do, indeed, have reason for meaning and purpose.
This post is revised from a previous one, now removed. Thanks for reading.
Notes
The paragraphs beginning "It's not the Bible," and "Some Christians, and others," were added on February 3, 2016.
*Note added, December 23, 2015. This originally was "type," rather than "race, or ethnic group." As I understand it, that original wording led to the first comment below. Sorry for the confusion that caused.
Note added, August 1, 2013. Commenter Laginestra (see below) points out that the Big Bang theory doesn't actually describe the origin of the universe, but the early development of the the universe. In other words, it doesn't specify where the universe, if it began with a big bang, came from. The universe had to be present, in some form, before there could have been a big bang. However, most people, including me at times, don't realize that, or don't make that distinction. Stephen Hawking is one scientist who has attempted to explain the origin of the universe. I thank the commenter for that important distinction.
Added, May 17, 2014. Here's a good article on the history of the discovery of the evidence for the Big Bang. The article also considers the possibility of multiple universes.
Added, May 29, 2014. Here's a good article the history of the idea of a Big Bang. Fred Hoyle, apparently an atheist, believed in a steady-state universe, one which didn't need some sort of start, apparently for religious reasons. (He was anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.) Hoyle is responsible for the term, "Big Bang," which was meant to be a mockery of the idea.
On January 23, 2017, the post was slightly edited for English usage mistakes.
As to the first, it is possible, indeed, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. (But see this post, and others, on a book by a believing Christian, scientist, and Bible scholar, David Snoke, entitled A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.) Even if the earth were only a few thousand years old, the Bible does not explicitly say that the universe is the same age as the earth. I don't see anything in the Bible that would rule out an ancient universe.
I also take two Biblical statements seriously. These are Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20, both of which tell us that one of God's ways of revealing himself to us is through what nature tells us. Much of what nature tells us, especially about things which are very small, very large, or very far away, or were very long ago, can come to us only though scientific findings. These findings may be mistaken at times, but they should certainly not be rejected out of hand. There is good scientific evidence that there was a Big Bang, and that it took place a very long time ago.
The Big Bang was not proposed as some sort of anti-God crusade. On the contrary, the first good evidence for a Big Bang was discovered by accident, by scientists who weren't looking for such evidence. The Big Bang, as an explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it, is taken by some scientists, even unbelieving scientists, as evidence for the existence of a divine Creator. For example, here's what the late Robert Jastrow wrote, about the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang, in his book, God and the Astronomers:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (New York: Warner Books, 1978, pp. 105-106.) Jastrow, according to the Wikipedia article on him, was not a Christian, but an agnostic. However, he believed that science had no explanation for what came before, or caused, the Big Bang, and acknowledged that the Judeo-Christian religions do have an explanation, namely that an eternal God began the universe with a supernatural act, or acts, such as the Big Bang. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, as Jastrow indicated, there were scientists who were pretty upset about the idea, because there was no good explanation for what caused it, or what, if anything, came before it. There still isn't an explanation that has been proved experimentally, although there have been attempts at such explanations, most notably by Stephen Hawking.
Acceptance of the idea of a Big Bang was slow. The evidence for a Big Bang is good, considering how long ago it would have happened, and the idea is accepted by most scientists. The evidence for it, to me, is an important part of God's revelation to us.
As to the connection to evolution, there is no direct connection. In the first place, evolution, like any controversial subject, should be defined before it is discussed at all. This, unfortunately, happens only rarely. In the second place, evolution is a biological process. The Big Bang was a physical process.
What Christians should be concerned about, even if they have the wrong name for it, is not evolution, but naturalism. That's what most conservative Christians really mean when they say that they don't believe in evolution. (There is good evidence, generally accepted, for at least some types of evolution. The most ardent Young-Earth Creationist scientists believe that humans evolved into more than one race, or ethnic group*, since the time of Noah, for example.) Naturalism is the idea that there are natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations for everything. It is, therefore, a form of atheism. Naturalism is believed by many scientists, and others, although there is no definitive evidence for it. The most prominent naturalist is Richard Dawkins, a competent biologist, but also a popular writer, crusading against Christianity and other religions. But even Dawkins does not claim that he has disproved God's existence, which, if he had, would prove naturalism.
The Bible begins with a statement that, if true, destroys naturalism: In the beginning, God created . . . Genesis 1 doesn't tell us when, why, or how. It does tell us that there was a Who. Naturalism says that there wasn't, and isn't, any Who. Christians believe that there was, and is. Undoubtedly, some people who believe in naturalism do so because, if it were true, it would mean that there are no Divinely created moral laws, and they want to believe that there aren't any such.
If someone says that the Big Bang event proves that there is no God, they are mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, supposing that God started the universe with a Big Bang makes good sense. If someone says that evolution, however defined, proves that there is no God, they are similarly mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, God may have used natural selection, the Big Bang, or both, as part of His method of making things like they are now. Knowledge and prior planning like that would be as wonderful, or more so, as creating every type of atom, and every type of living thing, from scratch.
It's not the Bible, but the movie, God's Not Dead, was generally well-received by the conservative Christian community. (The more recent movie, Do You Believe? was made by the same group, and there was also a God's Not Dead 2.) See here for my review of God's not Dead. In that review, I point out that the fictional main Christian character accepts the ideas that God used the Big Bang, and evolution to bring the world to its current state, in his defense of the existence of God.
As Hebrews 11 puts it: 3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible (World English Bible, public domain).
Some Christians, and others, claim that atheists/naturalists have no ground for finding purpose and meaning in life, or in existence. This article claims they do, indeed, have reason for meaning and purpose.
This post is revised from a previous one, now removed. Thanks for reading.
Notes
The paragraphs beginning "It's not the Bible," and "Some Christians, and others," were added on February 3, 2016.
*Note added, December 23, 2015. This originally was "type," rather than "race, or ethnic group." As I understand it, that original wording led to the first comment below. Sorry for the confusion that caused.
Note added, August 1, 2013. Commenter Laginestra (see below) points out that the Big Bang theory doesn't actually describe the origin of the universe, but the early development of the the universe. In other words, it doesn't specify where the universe, if it began with a big bang, came from. The universe had to be present, in some form, before there could have been a big bang. However, most people, including me at times, don't realize that, or don't make that distinction. Stephen Hawking is one scientist who has attempted to explain the origin of the universe. I thank the commenter for that important distinction.
Added, May 17, 2014. Here's a good article on the history of the discovery of the evidence for the Big Bang. The article also considers the possibility of multiple universes.
Added, May 29, 2014. Here's a good article the history of the idea of a Big Bang. Fred Hoyle, apparently an atheist, believed in a steady-state universe, one which didn't need some sort of start, apparently for religious reasons. (He was anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.) Hoyle is responsible for the term, "Big Bang," which was meant to be a mockery of the idea.
On January 23, 2017, the post was slightly edited for English usage mistakes.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Is nature all there is? John F. Haught
I have read John F. Haught's Is nature all there is? (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. See here for previous post on the book.)
I have read quite a few books on the philosophy of science, that is, on such topics as what the underpinnings of the scientific enterprise are, the history of the scientific way of finding things out, and what are the limitations, if any, of the scientific enterprise. I don't recall a better such book than the book referred to above. It is short -- 215 pages plus an index. It is well written, and readily understandable by a reasonably intelligent non-scientist.
After a most unfortunate beginning (Haught misquotes the late Carl Sagan, who said that "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be" -- Haught substitutes "universe" for "cosmos," and lengthens the quote by a few words.) the book is great.
For anyone who does not know, "naturalist" has at least two meanings. Some naturalists spend lots of time studying nature, generally trying to disturb the natural world as little as possible in the process. Haught uses the word to refer to someone who believes that there is a natural explanation for everything, as opposed to a supernaturalist, who believes that there is at least one something outside the universe, often a god or gods. Haught is a supernaturalist. So am I.
Haught argues that supernaturalism is more able to explain phenomena on the earth than naturalism, and does quite a good job of it.
In this post, I will restrict myself to two issues. One of these is the explanation of critical intelligence, the ability to analyze things critically. Naturalists, and others, depend on critical intelligence, and, in fact generally appeal to it as having bolstered their cases. Haught says this:
How then can we justify the spontaneous trust we all place in our critical intelligence and the imperatives of our minds? You will note that in asking this question I too am expressing confidence in my own mind, assuming that by obeying the imperatives to be open, intelligent and critical I may come closer to the truth, to what is. If I lacked this spontaneous trust I would not be asking the question that begins this paragraph. And if any naturalists are reading this book, they will notice once again that their own sincere questioning of what I am writing here is possible only because they too have already made an act of faith in the imperatives of their own minds to lead them to truth. (91) and this:
Therefore it is out of a sense of fidelity to my desire to know that I must now press on to find a more adaptive context for my critical intelligence than the one offered by scientific naturalism. I cannot find such an environment short of a worldview that looks upon nature as completely intelligible. And in the end, I believe, such a worldview must be a theological one, where the anticipated fullness of being, meaning and truth is ultimately nothing less than the eternal reality invoked by religions. Such a worldview is a much more encouraging setting for endless, ongoing scientific inquiry than is the naturalist belief that the universe "just is" and therefore is ultimately unintelligible. (96)
He also deals with purpose, and makes these telling statements:
For if nature is all there is, there could be no overall purpose to the universe. That is, there could be no goal beyond nature toward which the long cosmic journey would be winding its way. But if the logic here is correct, then the detection of an overarching purpose in nature would imply that nature is not all there is. In the broadest sense purpose means "directed toward a goal or telos." The question before us, then, is whether the cosmos as a whole is teleological, that is, goal-directed. (98)
Thanks for reading.
I have read quite a few books on the philosophy of science, that is, on such topics as what the underpinnings of the scientific enterprise are, the history of the scientific way of finding things out, and what are the limitations, if any, of the scientific enterprise. I don't recall a better such book than the book referred to above. It is short -- 215 pages plus an index. It is well written, and readily understandable by a reasonably intelligent non-scientist.
After a most unfortunate beginning (Haught misquotes the late Carl Sagan, who said that "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be" -- Haught substitutes "universe" for "cosmos," and lengthens the quote by a few words.) the book is great.
For anyone who does not know, "naturalist" has at least two meanings. Some naturalists spend lots of time studying nature, generally trying to disturb the natural world as little as possible in the process. Haught uses the word to refer to someone who believes that there is a natural explanation for everything, as opposed to a supernaturalist, who believes that there is at least one something outside the universe, often a god or gods. Haught is a supernaturalist. So am I.
Haught argues that supernaturalism is more able to explain phenomena on the earth than naturalism, and does quite a good job of it.
In this post, I will restrict myself to two issues. One of these is the explanation of critical intelligence, the ability to analyze things critically. Naturalists, and others, depend on critical intelligence, and, in fact generally appeal to it as having bolstered their cases. Haught says this:
How then can we justify the spontaneous trust we all place in our critical intelligence and the imperatives of our minds? You will note that in asking this question I too am expressing confidence in my own mind, assuming that by obeying the imperatives to be open, intelligent and critical I may come closer to the truth, to what is. If I lacked this spontaneous trust I would not be asking the question that begins this paragraph. And if any naturalists are reading this book, they will notice once again that their own sincere questioning of what I am writing here is possible only because they too have already made an act of faith in the imperatives of their own minds to lead them to truth. (91) and this:
Therefore it is out of a sense of fidelity to my desire to know that I must now press on to find a more adaptive context for my critical intelligence than the one offered by scientific naturalism. I cannot find such an environment short of a worldview that looks upon nature as completely intelligible. And in the end, I believe, such a worldview must be a theological one, where the anticipated fullness of being, meaning and truth is ultimately nothing less than the eternal reality invoked by religions. Such a worldview is a much more encouraging setting for endless, ongoing scientific inquiry than is the naturalist belief that the universe "just is" and therefore is ultimately unintelligible. (96)
He also deals with purpose, and makes these telling statements:
For if nature is all there is, there could be no overall purpose to the universe. That is, there could be no goal beyond nature toward which the long cosmic journey would be winding its way. But if the logic here is correct, then the detection of an overarching purpose in nature would imply that nature is not all there is. In the broadest sense purpose means "directed toward a goal or telos." The question before us, then, is whether the cosmos as a whole is teleological, that is, goal-directed. (98)
Thanks for reading.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Origins 101: nonsense, hogwash, etc.
I posted yesterday on "Origins 101: How things started." You probably don't care why I did it, but I'll tell you. I had written the post some time earlier, and was thinking about posting it. During my devotions, I consulted my journal for March, 2005, and read that, on March 23, 2005, the local daily newspaper, the Greenville News, published a letter by a Chuck Hartman, who is "pastor of Fellowship Bible Church and teaches middle school science and high school chemistry." The title of the letter was "Evolution, Christianity share dysfunctional relationship." The first sentence was "If evolution is true, then Christianity is false." (The letter is no longer available on-line. This is the South Carolina Greenville.)
According to my journal, I discussed this with one of my biology classes that day. A student told the class that, at the international youth convention of my denomination, The Wesleyan Church, a seminar speaker had said the same thing, and, further, had claimed that there is no natural selection.
I thought it was time to post, yet again, on this topic. So I did.
Adam commented on the yesterday's post, for which I am most grateful, and linked to an article in a March (the date of the article's on-line version is March 23) issue of the Arkansas Times, which describes how teachers in some Arkansas public schools are ordered not to teach about evolution, or even use the word in a science class, and not to suggest that the earth might be more than a few thousand years old.
Now, Pastor Hartman is probably a good man, with good intentions, and the seminar speaker probably is, too. At least some of the people setting science teaching policy in Arkansas probably are good people, with good intentions. I hope so, in all cases. But these people are at least partly wrong, and they are harming science instruction, and turning some people away from belief in the Bible, because of what they are doing.
Why do I say this?
There are a couple of things going on. Both are unfortunate. First, evolution is a word with many meanings, that isn't usually carefully defined, or defined at all. Second, matters susceptible to scientific analysis, and matters known by faith, are being confused with one another.
Notice the title of these posts. I have avoided the use of "evolution," deliberately. Why? For two reasons. First, as I said, it has many meanings, and should be carefully defined. Second, I personally prefer that evolution, at least in scientific contexts, should be used only to describe biological phenomena, real or hypothetical.
Natural selection is a process wherein a living organism produces more than one offspring, the offspring vary, and there are environmental pressures of some sort that put variants of one type at an advantage over the other offspring. The result is that the population in question changes its properties with time, so as to be better adapted to resist the environmental pressure. Does this process occur? Absolutely. I have never read a biologist (including young-earth creationist biologists) who doubt that this process occurs. Is this process responsible for change in living organisms? Yes. The differences in human populations or races can be explained in this way, for one outstanding example. Is natural selection responsible for the origin of, say, reptiles from amphibians? Maybe so, maybe not.
Why bring this up? For two reasons. Natural selection is one of the meanings of evolution. It's the main one in biological contexts. That being the case, Hartman's statement is at least partly wrong. Some evolution has occurred. The second reason is to point out that natural selection, the engine of biological evolution, cannot be responsible for the origin of the elements, the heavenly bodies, or the universe itself. These were either supernatural events, physical processes, or supernaturally guided physical processes. They weren't change over time driven by environmental pressure. (As of the date of this post, the article that this paragraph links to, from the Wikipedia, does not say that natural selection is responsible for the origin of new groups of organisms. It merely describes what natural selection is, and how it works. Except for some of the technical details, there should be no quarrel with the concept, or its reality.)
Now the nonsense, hogwash, etc. It is wrong to say that there is no such thing as evolution, at least unless you define what you mean by the word properly. To say that evolution has never happened, or that its existence negates Christianity, is nonsense, hogwash, or worse. (By worse, I mean deliberate deception, for political, financial, or other reasons.)
Although I wish he hadn't started his letter as he did, I do wish to give Rev. Hartman credit. His second sentence was "Two views concerning the origin of the universe and of life, having begun with diametrically opposed premises, cannot be made to agree or harmonize." He is right about that. Either things originated naturally, with no purpose, or they originated supernaturally, because of a purpose. Hartman goes on to say that the idea that determining which of these is true is not a question for science. It is a question for faith. To say that science has proved that there is no God, or god, is also hogwash, nonsense, or worse. Science can't do this. Some scientists are convinced that there isn't a God, but that doesn't make atheism scientific, any more than the fact that some scientists are Republicans make Republicanism scientific.
Denying that there was any supernatural influence in origins should, perhaps, be called naturalism, not evolution. If so, naturalism is what Christians should be opposing, not evolution.
Genesis doesn't tell us how, or when, or why things began. It does say Who started them. Hebrews 11:3 tells us that this is understood by faith. To believe that there was a Who is the most important aspect of a view of origins.
Go here for the first in this series.
Thanks for reading.
According to my journal, I discussed this with one of my biology classes that day. A student told the class that, at the international youth convention of my denomination, The Wesleyan Church, a seminar speaker had said the same thing, and, further, had claimed that there is no natural selection.
I thought it was time to post, yet again, on this topic. So I did.
Adam commented on the yesterday's post, for which I am most grateful, and linked to an article in a March (the date of the article's on-line version is March 23) issue of the Arkansas Times, which describes how teachers in some Arkansas public schools are ordered not to teach about evolution, or even use the word in a science class, and not to suggest that the earth might be more than a few thousand years old.
Now, Pastor Hartman is probably a good man, with good intentions, and the seminar speaker probably is, too. At least some of the people setting science teaching policy in Arkansas probably are good people, with good intentions. I hope so, in all cases. But these people are at least partly wrong, and they are harming science instruction, and turning some people away from belief in the Bible, because of what they are doing.
Why do I say this?
There are a couple of things going on. Both are unfortunate. First, evolution is a word with many meanings, that isn't usually carefully defined, or defined at all. Second, matters susceptible to scientific analysis, and matters known by faith, are being confused with one another.
Notice the title of these posts. I have avoided the use of "evolution," deliberately. Why? For two reasons. First, as I said, it has many meanings, and should be carefully defined. Second, I personally prefer that evolution, at least in scientific contexts, should be used only to describe biological phenomena, real or hypothetical.
Natural selection is a process wherein a living organism produces more than one offspring, the offspring vary, and there are environmental pressures of some sort that put variants of one type at an advantage over the other offspring. The result is that the population in question changes its properties with time, so as to be better adapted to resist the environmental pressure. Does this process occur? Absolutely. I have never read a biologist (including young-earth creationist biologists) who doubt that this process occurs. Is this process responsible for change in living organisms? Yes. The differences in human populations or races can be explained in this way, for one outstanding example. Is natural selection responsible for the origin of, say, reptiles from amphibians? Maybe so, maybe not.
Why bring this up? For two reasons. Natural selection is one of the meanings of evolution. It's the main one in biological contexts. That being the case, Hartman's statement is at least partly wrong. Some evolution has occurred. The second reason is to point out that natural selection, the engine of biological evolution, cannot be responsible for the origin of the elements, the heavenly bodies, or the universe itself. These were either supernatural events, physical processes, or supernaturally guided physical processes. They weren't change over time driven by environmental pressure. (As of the date of this post, the article that this paragraph links to, from the Wikipedia, does not say that natural selection is responsible for the origin of new groups of organisms. It merely describes what natural selection is, and how it works. Except for some of the technical details, there should be no quarrel with the concept, or its reality.)
Now the nonsense, hogwash, etc. It is wrong to say that there is no such thing as evolution, at least unless you define what you mean by the word properly. To say that evolution has never happened, or that its existence negates Christianity, is nonsense, hogwash, or worse. (By worse, I mean deliberate deception, for political, financial, or other reasons.)
Although I wish he hadn't started his letter as he did, I do wish to give Rev. Hartman credit. His second sentence was "Two views concerning the origin of the universe and of life, having begun with diametrically opposed premises, cannot be made to agree or harmonize." He is right about that. Either things originated naturally, with no purpose, or they originated supernaturally, because of a purpose. Hartman goes on to say that the idea that determining which of these is true is not a question for science. It is a question for faith. To say that science has proved that there is no God, or god, is also hogwash, nonsense, or worse. Science can't do this. Some scientists are convinced that there isn't a God, but that doesn't make atheism scientific, any more than the fact that some scientists are Republicans make Republicanism scientific.
Denying that there was any supernatural influence in origins should, perhaps, be called naturalism, not evolution. If so, naturalism is what Christians should be opposing, not evolution.
Genesis doesn't tell us how, or when, or why things began. It does say Who started them. Hebrews 11:3 tells us that this is understood by faith. To believe that there was a Who is the most important aspect of a view of origins.
Go here for the first in this series.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)