A Michigan State poll reveals that within some 32 European nations and the U.S. and Japan, only the Turkish population rejects the idea of evolution at a higher rate than do American citizens. And only in the United States does evolution play a notable role in partisan politics. The scholars who conducted the survey suggest that both religious beliefs and overall scientific illiteracy of Americans (as measured by non-controversial and “objective” standards, such as knowledge of genetics) help explain variation between nations. Moreover, an earlier 2004 Gallop poll found that belief in evolution was correlated with education level more generally. Yet another survey showed that of 73 Biology Department heads, only one characterized evolution as “a scientific controversy” within his or her department. Also, another department head said that one of his department members supported Intelligent Design, but that in general evolution is not a controversy in the discipline. The 71 other department heads firmly held that evolution is not a controversial theory.
Well.
What are we to make of this? There’s little from this data that what we can say about the ultimate truth of evolution. What we CAN say, however, is this. The more one knows about biology—the scientific subject matter of evolution--the more likely one is to embrace evolution as the best evidence-driven model for explaining what evolution and ID and Creationism all purport to explain. Moreover, those who know the most about biology--in other words, those who devote their lives to studying it and presenting their work to others who are similarly committed to it—are nearly unanimous in embracing it.
So the idea of “teaching the controversy” is, um, majorly stupid. I’m speaking literally. I mean both ignorant and foolish. Stupid. Teaching the controversy is almost like giving equal share to moon landing conspiracy theorists and NASA officials in a discussion on space travel. The analogy is an exaggeration, true, but it points us in the right direction.
As a general rule, any controversy about evolution is not between biologists, but between those who study biology and those who do not, as well as between those who are committed to scientific principles (including, yes, its presuppositions) and those persons whose theology or ontology require them to reject out of hand any scientific conclusions that do not square with their interpretation of the Bible. Here’s an example. John MacArthur is a conservative evangelical author whose “The MacArthur Study Bible” has sold over five hundred thousand copies. He also has written “numerous bestselling books” and has “60,000 hours of sermon preparation” under his belt!! He’s the real deal, this one. Perfect evangelical credentials. And here’s what he says about the Genesis account of creation.
“Scientific theories, by their very definition, are subject to change and adjustment. Scripture remains as God’s revealed, unchanging declaration of truth. The Bible was not written as a challenge to any particular scientific theory, but scientific theories have often been designed to challenge or undermine biblical statements. They either agree with Scripture or are mistaken.”
Then he immediately concludes that, according to “the description in Genesis 1:1…creation was a recent event measured in thousands not millions of years ago.”
What he’s saying is that it’s either God or the scientists.
Well, shoot.
Sadly, too many scientists agree with MacArthur's choices. That’s part of the reason why it’s a great big deal in the evangelical community when a celebrated and accomplished scientist such as Francis Collins comes out in favor of God--and even when he or she continues to embrace evolution! (It’s pitiful, really. “Look at us!! We’ve been validated by real science!! We ARE smart after all!! Hooray!”)
A common strategy for evangelical Christians to undermine biblicaly suspect scientific claims is to challenge scientists to explain everything with the information that scientists currently possess. “But where did life come from, Herr Doktor Scientist?.” Or, “how can you believe in evolution when you can’t explain how those first complicated self-replicating protein strands were created?”
But that’s an incredibly dumb strategy for creationists to take because it squeezes God into smaller and smaller arenas for operation. The underlying assumption in these questions finally embraces the atheist scientist’s assumptions: things that can be explained by scientific thinking crowd out a place for God. Therefore by this standard as the world is increasingly explained by science—and, let’s face it, science has discovered and explained frontiers of knowledge that were simply unimaginable a hundred years ago, ranging from relativity to neuroscience—the hooks by which we can hang our faith are disappearing left and right.
But here’s the other problem with this line of inquiry. Scientists are ignorant. Ignorant in a good way. It’s their ignorance that drives their labor, their thought, their research, their waking hours. Honest scientists are not defensive about their ignorance but are willing to come forward with what they are investigating, to admit what they don’t know. Showing that scientists are ignorant is hardly a refutation of their models. What scientists do is explain the world as best they can given what they know using their methodological tools. And evolution is that model that presently explains the world better than any other model. Science is subject to revolution, and it is possible that someday scientists will develop another model that better accounts than does evolution for the reality that scientist are trying to understand.
Here’s my question for biologists. Perhaps it is simply explained; I just don’t know the answer. I would appreciate any biologists out there to throw me a bone here. Here it is. Scientists tell us not to anthropomorphize nature. The moon doesn’t “want” to revolve around the earth. Magnets don’t actively seek out each other. Fine. But about all this replication that is necessary to transmit code, information, or identical molecular structure from one living creature to the next, um, why does it do that? I have a hard time avoiding the Spencer-inspired notion of DNA being purposeful. How can I explain this succinctly? I guess I can't. Hmm…maybe my concern is related to entropy. I’m fumbling for words now. Okay, somehow from that primordial stuff that existed before the emergence of life, complicated molecular structures became assembled. I don’t understand this, but I accept it. (“GASP!! Aha! See, you DO believe what you do on FAITH!!!” Umm..yeah. Duh. But that's a topic for another discussion.) But my question is this: given the tendency for things to break down into their component parts, why isn’t the history of the world an ongoing series of origins and dissolutions, slow beginnings and quick endings? A complicated molecule made now, then a complicated molecule broken up soon thereafter? What made the replication replicate so well? And why did these strands eventually take the form of Tigers and spores and squid? Why not just replicating as long strands of meaningless molecules? Like crystals replicating. We wouldn't think of crystals, no matter how much they replicate, eventually turning into, say, B-2 bombers, right?
Well? Explain that please.
Evolutionist Ernst Mayer says, “Life as it now exists on Earth , including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin.” Why is that so obvious? Really. I don’t get it. If these molecules were made and unmade at the very beginning, as surely they were, then why did one set of self-replicating molecules continue to replicate? Why did this “single origin” strand stick when others did not? Are simple compounds being formed into these complicated self-replicating molecules even today? Why can’t various species trace back to different origins? Evolution is a material process, and it may even be occurring in other planets, so it’s not special in any fundamental way. We’re lucky to have it, but it’s not a miracle. So is it occurring at that most basic level still? I don’t mean from simple processes of molecule assembly already going on within live organisms. I mean from dead stuff to live stuff. Is that happening still? And if not, why not?
Okay, I know I asked the same question about six times.
Now: talk amongst yourselves.
Posts
.jpg)
9 comments:
I have the same questions as you but my questions have led me to believe that God created the universe and not evolution. For me, the best answer to the question, "how did life get here on earth and how did it get to be so complicated?" can only be answered satifactorily if the answer is God made it that way.
As an engineer, I can't believe that the only time that entropy is not in effect was at the beginning of all life on earth. Everything falls apart; nothing falls together and becomes more organized. Just look at your desk, your house, your car, anything. Entropy is overwhelming. Only when intelligence is applied to your desk, your house, your car, do things which are in disorder become neat and in order.
Here's another couple of questions that the evolutional theory just doesn't answer but that the Biblical creation theory does. Why did we evolve to be male and female? Why don't we all reproduce asexually? After all that is supposedly how we started out, right? Can an asexual critter somehow randomly mutate into a male? It doesn't make any sense. And what if that randomly mutated male couldn't find another randomly mutated female to mate with? What are the odds that within one mating season that both a male mutation and a female mutation happened at the same time and were able to produce a viable offspring? To me, these answers can only be answered by "God made them male and female."
We read a National Geographic article about a moth that as a larva, crawls into an ant's den and puts out a smell that makes the ants think that it is a baby ant and needs food. The ants feed this larva, it changes into a pupa and then into the moth. As it changes into the moth, it must quickly leave the nest before the ants stop smelling the baby ant smell (which the moth by now has stopped making) and kill the moth. Now there are so many bizarre steps (or mutations in the road of evolution) in this little insect's life that I have a harder time believing that each step was successfully evolved. It is actually easier to believe that God made that moth to do exactly what it does.
technoprairie--
thanks. those are all good questions and observations. as you acknowledged, i ask the very same questions. the entropy/watchmaker arguments (they're flipsides of the same line of thinking) have lots of intuitive power, and i think it's fair to ask biologists, geologists, chemists, and the rest of the scientific community that overwhelmingly endorses evolution to address these concerns. that's only fair. that being said, i doubt the challenges will convert many scientists. at least they didn't when they were first used against darwin and wallace in the 1860's.
evolution is a touchy subject for lots of people, myself included if i'm going to be honest about it, and i really do appreciate your excellent observations and great questions.
thanks for the post. i accepted your post but for some reason it didnt'/hasn't posted immediately, so these comments may actually precede yours. i think a lot of issues muddy the waters, actually, and there are tons of questions that scientists have to work through. the one you raise may be a tough one for geologists; i really don't know. the kind of question you pose, however, is a material one, a natural one: "under which conditions are strata formed and fossils formed?" and "given the variety of ways in which they are formed, what does that say about other assumptions we hold, assumptions that seem fundamental to the theory of evolution?" that's strike me as good scientific questions. and insofar one pursues these kinds of questions, that's not a matter of faith (revelation) but a matter of science.
but i can't agree with you that all things that can't be directly observed are simply matter of faith. nothing in the past can be directly observed. but that doesn't mean that all methods or conclusions are equally dependent upon faith. what's striking about the sciences is that one sees a remarkable convergence of disciplines--ranging from astronomy to phsyics to meteorology to biology to chemistry to geology--that all use distinct methodologies and yet independently come up with some important conclusions about, say, the age of the earth.
it's pretty old.
true, scientists do maintain several assumptions that cannot be scientifically proven, but in my opinion that kind of faith is different than the faith of revelation. it doesn't mean either or both are wrong.
I'll try and recall my brilliant arguments as I type this again.
In my brilliant, yet sadly erased comments, I pointed out the Mt. St. Helens eruption created both strata like that in the Grand Canyon and fossilized trees. These trees which were fossilized in a matter of weeks were sent to a lab and were dated using scientific methods as fossils millions of years old. So cateclistmic events can cause the same kind of effects that evolutionists say take millions of years.
Also in those brilliant, yet unseen by the world, notes, I pointed out that since we weren't there when God created the earth or since we can't recreate any kind of macro-evolution or even observe it today, we must take the creation of life as a matter of faith. Either faith in God or faith in evolution.
Yes, I know that many scientists date the earth as very old. But there are scientists that also date the earth much younger. So again, do you believe scientists in group A or scientists in group B?
thanks for resending the note, technoprairie.
Oh, where to begin. I'd agree that evolution may be the best theory we have at present to describe how we got here. It's also convenient for scientists since it's essentially unprovable. To do so, we'd either have to observe evolution - requiring a very long lived person, or a very meticulous record of multiple species over thousands of generations (and even for a very short lived creature, one would have to question if existing wholly in a lab environment really allowed evolution to proceed) - or we'd have to have a valid record of some species evolution. For good or ill, the fossil record we have is far too thin to ever prove evolution. Several fragments of a skeleton reconstructed by some scientist using computer modeling and declaring it a step in the evolutionary chain is hardly satisfactory - especially since computer models tend to generate what we program them to. But I digress.
What I really wanted to do was add a couple of additional questions. Like Micheal B's original post - I'd be open to hear answers from someone who studies this (I do not).
- Where do birds come from? Seriously. Dinosaurs were the evolutionary pre-cursors we are told. Yet, I'm not aware of any scientist who suggests that dinosaurs hung around for extended periods. Theories of asteroid impact, ice age, what have you. But all end in the dinos going away. It doesn't seem like both of these can be true. So, which species of dinosaur survived through what killed the rest to become the birds we know today?
- Let's assume evolution is true. And that the earth is 4 Billion (or so) years old. Has enough time really elapsed to create (via evolution) all species on the planet? If it takes thousands of generations to make small changes and we are talking about single cell organisms evoling into not one, but many thousands of complex species, could that happen in 4B years. I haven't tried the math, but instinctively (to me anyway), it seems like the planet hasn't been around long enough to evolve that many species (life is younger than the earth remember) - and don't forget to count plants. If all life evolved in the same way, wouldn't that mean plants also evolved from the same place that animal life did?
Starting to ramble...time to cease.
great questions. i have the same question about the age of the earth and the time needed to evolve from the most basic blocks until now.
questions are good, and good scientists love them. when i'm at meetings with my colleagues, i note that the scientists tend to ask the simplest and best questions. the folks in the humanities posture more.
about evolution being convenient. i don't know; i'm struck by how scientists love (a) to solve puzzles, and (b) introduce the "big new theory." i would guess based on these two criteria that scientists would have every incentive to debunk a theory unless it's producing rich results.
just a thought.
thanks for the post!
Homie B! What an excellent post. I had no idea you were writing so regularly. This is well-reasoned and well-stated, and I want nothing more than to make it forced reading for my argumentative friend who is always trying to drag me to "Expelled," that one-sided, misleading excuse of a documentary.
Adjectives in that sentence, much? Anyway, I liked it.
I also think most evolutionists would give most of their teeth to know the answer to the question(s) you pose as your finale.
Re: dinosarus to birds: It would seem that the smallish feathered dinosaurs that eventually became birds would have been fairly far along the process before all the rest became extinct. Or, because they were smaller, they were less vulnerable to whatever changes precipitated the extinction of the rest. Either way, not too difficult to imagine a solution.
awww....you're so generous, kind, good, wise (obviously), and just plain terrific. (and lots of other scouting virtues.)
see? i can match you bloody adjective to bloody adjective.
it's fun to flip on the ol' computer and find out who's been taking a peek at the blog.
later. trust all is well in your world!
Post a Comment