Reformed Seminary, College, Free Sermons, Scholarly Resources, and Overseas Missions Opportunities

Q:

“I thought evolution was just a theory.  Why do you call it a fact?”

A:

“Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.  That this happens is a fact.  Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors.  The evidence for historical evolution—genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc.—is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact.  The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution.  So evolution is both a fact and a theory.”

R:

Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely “a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.”  There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here.  The controversy exists because evolution—the full-fledged manifestation of evolution (including Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution)—is for many a metaphysical belief that elevates the philosophy of materialistic naturalism (hailing purely natural laws and processes, including time and chance, as our “creators”), and dismissing God (a Creator with purpose) as an irrelevant product of superstition. 

After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it?  Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist?  Because of ignorance?  Hardly!  Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of evolution.  Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysic—in short, on close examination, evolution fails on all counts.  There is a controversy precisely because of clashing metaphysics—the same type of conflict that exists when Christian theology comes face-to-face with Islam, Buddhism, or even atheism, to name just a few popular counter-Christian belief systems.

Despite all of this, TO promotes the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of ‘religion versus science’—‘emotion versus reason.’  This view is held mostly out of ignorance, but there are undoubtedly those within the TO organization that understand the matter well enough to know better.  However, TO does very little to educate its audience on the philosophical foundation of its position.  This is deception by omission.

Q:

“Don’t you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?”

A:

“No.  Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.”

R:

Two points here.  First, TO wants to assure its visitors that “Christian and other faiths” are compatible with evolution.  I would again say that all beliefs are compatible with evolution as long as evolution is confined to speaking about (observed) biological change.  But as we all know (or should know), this is not the way that it is. 

Evolution, as a manifestation of methodological naturalism (the operational version of philosophical naturalism), makes countless assertions into metaphysical areas with cosmological and biological origins representing just a few of these.  TO makes no attempt to make known this subtle yet all-important aspect of what ‘accepting evolution’ comprehensively means.  TO lures ‘people of all faiths’ into their camp with assurances of compatibility.  Deception by omission.

The second point concerns the latter half of their answer: “...evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.”  Such a statement suggests the necessity of concessions, compromises, and ‘special’ interpretations of the Bible in order to satisfy the (naturalistic) theory of evolution as the explanation for biodiversity.  After all, not doing so entails opposing the formidable and authoritative pronouncements of the “scientific establishment”—and who wants to do that?  [Besides, exactly how would the average person go about challenging this “scientific establishment”?]

I ask, whatever happened to the answer that, “Biodiversity is part of God’s creation”?  Specifically, if a person believes in God as the Creator of everything then this ‘everything’ includes the biodiversity that we observe.  Of course, maybe in this arena ‘everything’ does not mean everything?  Nowhere does the Bible even hint that a gelatinous substance was formed and that from this goo there emerged ‘simple life’ that diversified—over eons—into zebras, humans, and the rest of the biological community. 

Quite to the contrary, concerning man’s origin, the Bible very clearly states that ‘from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female’ (Genesis 1:27; Mark 10:6).  It bears pointing out that this foundational event in the biblical record defies any kind of evolutionary ‘interpretation’ that doesn’t compromise either evolutionary dogma, the credibility of the biblical record, or both.  The Bible contains numerous other assertions that cannot be reasonably answered under the paradigm of evolution unless the Bible receives ‘special’ interpretation—the kind that denigrates the historical validity of the biblical record in order to accommodate popular contemporary beliefs.  This then is the bottom line:  the Bible has to be distorted in order to accommodate the edicts of evolution.  TO never mentions any of this, preferring instead to shamelessly assert that evolution and Christianity are somehow ‘compatible.’

Besides, “...evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity” is nothing more than a tautology in the sense that it is the “scientific community” that dictates what is admissible and what is not.  Is it any surprise that this same community embraces philosophical/methodological naturalism and frowns heavily upon anything that even remotely suggests anything other than material causes? 

I can think of no better illustration of this than the case of intelligent design theory (ID).  Leaving out numerous details, ID is having a difficult time being accepted into the scientific establishment as a bona fide scientific theory simply because it has metaphysical—in fact theistic—implications.  After all, if the logical conclusion is that specified and complex design is present, then a designer is the only available option and the big ‘G’ immediately enters the realm of possibilities.  Naturalists were quick to pick up on this rather obvious and, to them, highly unpalatable conclusion and as a result ID is being treated by many as if it were advocating the practice of human sacrifices.

The fact of the matter is that ID is as robust a scientific theory as one should reasonably expect, having all of the components—foundation, logical/mathematical formulation, explanatory/predictive power, etc.—that other widely accepted scientific theories have.  For more details on this I recommend two sources:  The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998 by William Dembski and Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, InterVarsity Press, 1999 also by William Dembski. 

To summarize this point, ID is not being scorned because it is bad science or illogical, but because it crosses the line that separates one metaphysical worldview from another.  The “people in charge”, i.e., the naturalistic scientific establishment, are unwilling to allow that to happen—naturalism must be protected at all costs, from their point of view.  Why doesn’t TO mention or elaborate on any of this to its readers?  Deception by omission

Q:

“Isn’t evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology?”

A:

“No.  Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided.”

R:

Evolution is largely an operational manifestation of a philosophically naturalistic foundation—to deny this is to be either uninformed or deceiving.  There simply cannot be an area of scientific inquiry without some philosophical foundation for the obvious fact that science is conducted exclusively by humans (no aliens, please!) and all humans—whether they acknowledge it or not—subscribe to some philosophy regarding their internal being (consciousness) and their external world (the universe).  For TO to state that philosophical criticisms are misguided is an act of willful ignorance at best and unmitigated deceit at worst.

As far as the ability to ‘falsify’ evolution consider the following:

1. Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick promotes ‘directed panspermia’ (i.e., ‘DNA originated somewhere ‘out in space’ and somehow made its way to Earth’), apparently having recognized the odds against a natural earthly cause for DNA.^[1]

2. Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton, New York, 1986) assumes the number (10²⁰ by his accounting) of theoretically possible planets that may exist in the universe in order to provide sufficient opportunities for the highly improbable event of life to occur naturally (i.e., without intelligent direction).

3. Barrow and Tipler (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press, 1986) go far beyond Dawkins in that they invoke entire universes (theoretical, of course) as the potential arenas for (natural) life to emerge.

4. Kauffman (The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford, 1993) takes a different route than Dawkins, Barrow and Tipler.  Kauffman brings into the panorama a hypothetical set of laws by which life may emerge here on Earth solely through (only) natural process.

Now, some may choose to argue that these distinguished gentlemen are simply doing ‘science’—proposing theories to explain observations, among other things.  However...

The term to remember here was ‘falsifiable’—and, to take just one example, we might ask ourselves how one goes about falsifying an infinite number of universes.

Here’s the point to all of this:

If we are allowed to propose essentially anything (aliens, parallel universes, 10²⁰ planets, extra dimensions, time travel, etc., etc.) in order to uphold our theory then how will it ever be possible for that theory to be truly falsifiable?  As clever and imaginative as we humans are, wouldn’t we be able to—don’t we—contrive just about anything that would allow us to retain the position or theory that we cherish? 

Well, not always.  All human cleverness and imagination could not save the phlogiston theory, the notion of blood humors, the geocentric model, and many other now defunct ideas.  There is, however, one major difference where evolution is concerned—a difference that makes evolution impervious to that which toppled these aforementioned and now extinct ideas.  That difference is the intimate and critical connection between evolution and philosophical naturalism—a metaphysical (i.e., religious) connection. 

As the universally recognized and accepted authority on what is admissible as ‘scientifically valid’, the scientific establishment (anchored in naturalism) has constructed the rules so that evolution is the de facto answer.  This matter may be expanded in many directions so I’ll end on this note:  eliminate evolution and what are the remaining options?  Naturalists know well that to eliminate evolution is to eliminate the single possibility for a natural explanation of the origin of life and of biodiversity.  Therefore, evolution must be sustained even if this requires hypothesizing the preposterous or the unfalsifiable.  The only other alternative, the supernatural, is simply not admissible.

One further example of this, not listed above, of how the establishment is committed to defending its position at all costs is the case regarding transitional fossils.  The transitional fossil evidence is highly suspect and a great deal of controversy exists within and outside of scientific circles—certainly not what the evolution advocates (particularly Darwin himself) ever expected.

So what do the evolution advocates do?  Is the validity of the theory even questioned?  Never!  Instead, ingenious mechanisms such as Goldschmidt’s ‘hopeful monsters’, the ‘emication’ idea of the Swedish botanist and geneticist Nils Heribert-Nilsson and the more palatable ‘punctuated equilibria’ of Gould and Eldredge were proposed—whatever it takes to lend credibility to a theory weakened by the empirical data.  There is a fine line between scientific ‘ingenious mechanisms’ and metaphysical ‘sorcerer concoctions’ and it is a historical fact that even reputable men of science have crossed this line many times in order to support a paradigm.  So once again I must point out that if naturalists essentially have a carte blanche in what they may propose to uphold their pet theory, in this case evolution, then it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for someone to falsify their position.  Why doesn’t TO expound on this fact?  Deception by omission.

Q:

“No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it’s true?”

A:

“Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly.  It is true.”

R:

Need I repeat it?  Yes, if evolution is confined to saying that, “biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time” then TO’s conclusion of “it is true” is an accurate statement.  However, it’s what TO doesn’t say that makes their answer deceiving, and this continuous deception makes TO an indoctrination site for advancing philosophical naturalism—buyers beware! 

For the record, every informed creationist that I know of accepts changes, mutations, adaptations and even speciation—there is no dispute here.  The real dispute is in the naturalists’ extrapolation from (observable) genetic ‘change’ to (unobservable) Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution to (unobservable) ‘cause for being’.  Such an extension is no longer science, it is a metaphysical transfiguration.  TO does not inform its readers of this, since to do so weakens the case for their apparent true objective:  Deception by omission.

Q:

“Then why has no one ever seen a new species occur?”

A:

“Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature.”

R:

This is absolutely true [speciation as science defines it has been observed] but, as I have stated already, there is no dispute here.  However, TO does not get to the core of the matter and leads its readers to the notion that the origins controversy is one of science versus religion—that creationists deny the fact of speciation and are thus “ignorant”.  Why don’t they mention the critical point, namely that creationists do accept speciation—but the dispute is about the causing agent of speciation, biodiversity and, ultimately, biological origins?  Why do they make false accusations against creationists, instead of facing the empirical roadblock to the arbitrary extrapolation of Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution from the variations observed in speciation?  Deception by omission.

Q:

“Doesn’t evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?  After all, order cannot come from disorder.”

A:

“Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.  Order emerges from disorder all the time.  Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc.”

R:

TO is here propagating one of the most odious of all myths in the creation-evolution controversy, this being that the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics is either invalid or has been amply refuted.  This is simply not true.

The essential information that TO is either ignorant of (or is concealing from its readers) is that when snowflakes form they do so according to thermodynamic principles that produce patterns (i.e., symmetric crystalline structures) that are far from the asymmetric, far more complex structures required for life.  What’s more, symmetric structures occur naturally because thermodynamic equilibrium is a natural state.  On the other hand, life—any life—is actually a departure from thermodynamic equilibrium; a significant departure that requires large amounts of directed energy to be sustained, according to requirements defined in advance by every organism’s genetic code.

Similarly, the example of “trees grow and embryos develop” is again an oversimplification based on either ignorance on the part of TO, or a willful concealing of the whole truth from their readers.  The point is not that organisms grow but how they are able to grow.  The typical, shortsighted response is that “they are receiving energy from the sun—it is an open system and this energy provides the fuel for growth”.  Recently, Harvard’s own Ernst Mayr served up precisely this “open system” explanation in his latest book, What Evolution Is [Basic Books, 2001, page 8].  True, energy is being supplied but the main point is being missed (intentionally?).

Let’s take a blow torch to a tree or an embryo, thereby supplying it with plenty of energy, and then let’s stand back and watch them grow.  Of course, what’ll happen is they will be incinerated!  Energy is not the key; energy reception, utilization and storage is the key.  In other words, there must be a highly sophisticated and fully functional energy management system—a system that enables input, conversion, storage and output—if a tree is to grow or an embryo is to develop.  This is the crux of the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics and not some easily discarded strawman.  Why doesn’t TO present the real issue and respond to it?  Deception by omission.

Q:

“The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.”

A:

“And irrelevant.  Scientists don’t claim that cells came into being through random processes.  They are thought to have evolved from primitive precursors.”

R:

Let’s just focus on the ending words of their answer, “...from primitive precursors”.  Evolution advocates have always believed that it was possible for nature to begin with “simple, primitive life” and evolve over eons towards ever-increasing complexity.  This is, after all, a major postulate of evolution.  There’s just one problem with this hypothesis and it’s a whopper of a problem!

As science and technology advance, what we are finding is that the notion of “simple, primitive life” is receding at an ever-quickening pace.  It is now clear that the idea of a ‘simple gelatinous goo’ actually necessitates a level of complexity that cannot be explained naturally even letting the imagination run rampant.  Likewise, the ‘simple’ cell has been found to be anything but ‘simple’.  In fact, the cell is now understood to be of a complexity that eludes all scientific attempts to quantify it and the more we study it the more complexities are being unveiled. 

These are just a few of the reasons why those that want to uphold evolution while retaining naturalism (their metaphysical position) have come up with aliens or with hypothetical natural mechanisms of self-organization or with other contrivances—it’s the only way to explain these vast directed complexities while keeping the big ‘G’ out! 

Thus, when TO uses the words “...from primitive precursors,” why don’t they mention to their readers the fact that the concept of a primitive organism is a philosophical ideal for which there is not a single shred of empirical scientific evidence?  Why don’t they mention that current scientific evidence leads to but one reasonable conclusion, namely, that the simplest conceivable organism must be anything but simple or primitive if it is to be capable of carrying out any of life’s functions.  Is TO ignorant of these facts?  I don’t believe they are.  Deception by omission.