Is Evolution as a Theory Problematic?

I’m taking an online class and we have weekly questions. The question for Monday is this:

Some critics of evolution claim that the evolutionary process is weakened by the fact that it is only a theory. Is there validity to this idea? Does this weaken the argument? Why or why not?

 

I thought this would be a great topic for this forum and it could lead me to some other resources for my homework.

Thanks, guys!

Catie

(See her original question, and the discussion that followed by clicking here:  http://www.americanvision.org/worldviewforum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=990&start=0 )

Shotgun replies:

Catie,

I’m not sure what a small-town guy can add to what’s already been said, nor am I convinced he should try. But small town guys seem to have noses permanently fixed where they don’t belong, and mouths constantly full of their own feet, and so on behalf of them all, I’ll provide a brief two-cents (and hopefully it will be more poetic than the others, if less accurate):

Scientists aren’t too different from small-town boys. They’re stuck with finitude. Maybe that’s a common ground?  They’re both convinced of an infinity, and both attempt to describe it. But, just like the kid that looks to heaven and says “the sky goes on forever” the scientist is stuck in an equally mysterious world. Perhaps his theory is more complex than the child’s, but is one more important than the other?

When looking for practical results, we could say the naive beliefs of the scientist are more worthwhile than the child’s or the small-towner that believes in better things beyond his front porch. In the end, the small-town guy may realize the front porch was priceless, and similarly, the scientist may realize his “theory” was simply a pipe-dream?

I’d fight to defend the notions of the child. I see no reason why the scientist should give up his theory for any less a price. It may prove to be useless in the end, but the child needs to believe SOMETHING about the sky. The small-town guy needs to have SOME notion of the world. And the scientist, well, to do his job at all he must have SOME view of the world. Without it, he’d not be able to operate.

Even Mr. Vaughn, (who claims to have validated the theory of relativity in a lab) was operating within SOME view of the world. He believed his instruments were working properly, and that his eyes were true! He didn’t test those theories beforehand. (And if he did, then what test would he run to make sure his equipment test was conducted properly? It would be an endless cycle of tests. Tests upon tests to make sure other tests are accurate!)

In the end, we’re all constrained by our finitude. We’re no better off than the child that says “the sky goes on forever!” In this sense, the child’s theory, as well as the theories of the brightest scientists are on equal footing. This is the nature of all our beliefs.

That we have theories, shouldn’t, in and of itself, be a cause for rejecting one or the other of them, since they’re all unavoidable. And should the child be right, and the sky really does go on forever…then let him be happy with what that belief brings him. It’s my hope that God regenerates all our hearts so that we all shared the same “theory” but until that happens, I’ll not rob the child of his, nor the scientists of theirs. (Unless they force theirs on the child. At that point, the small-town boy will extract his foot from his mouth and place it firmly up the scientist’s backside…metaphorically speaking of course!)

My Question to Dr. Sarfati

I decided to ask Dr. Sarfati a question at the recent Worldview Conference. I was curious about part of his presentation. To be honest…I’ve had questions about a particular “creationist” model for some time. I’ll preface this question by admitting to a long and pleasant relationship with the Young Earth Creation movement and I am particularly fond of Dr. Sarfati. I’m not trying to pick apart the movement or offer anything other than helpful criticism. It seems to me that a bit of naturalism has surreptitiously infiltrated the paradigms of popular creationists.

To the point: Dr. Sarfati discussed a certain critique against evolution made by C.S. Lewis. I don’t remember the particular citation, though I recognize the argument from Lewis’ “Miracles.” In the main, Lewis argues that evolution denies rational beings true beliefs (since evolution produces what is useful not necessarily what is true.) Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has formulated a more analytical statement of this argument commonly known as the “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.” If Naturalism is true, then we have little reason to believe that our beliefs are true.

In this way, natural selection within an autonomous universe is critiqued epistemologically. But what happens when we apply the same critique to post-flood creation models? The model says that after the flood natural selection occured at rapid levels…as Dr. Sarfati demonstrated: The dogs with short hair could have died during the ice-age, leaving their shaggy brother behind. The shaggy brother produces generations of shaggy dogs. I see no reason why Lewis’ critique would not apply to Dr. Sarfati’s model of diversification.

If autonomous nature is going to guide our developement, then we cannot trust our beliefs to be true. Furthermore from a theological perspective…as I’ve argued elsewhere…if man is not the responsible causal agent in nature, then we cannot legally be held accountable for sin. Creationist diversification models have a lot of problems to surmount in my opinion.

3 Reasons NOT to Compromise!

Gary North is providing a wonderful service to Christendom!  He’s attempting to write a full economic commentary of the Bible.

I had purchased vol I “Genesis:  The Dominion Covenant” awhile back and it’s sat on my shelf ever since.

In chapter two he covers Gen 1:14-16:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years; And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:  he made the stars also.

Now, he makes a ton of wonderful observations about this passage and highlights many metaphysical as well as economical implications.

During the course of the essay however, he also offers up three reasons why Christians should NOT compromise on the plain reading of the creation account.  He says this:

“It does absolutely no good whatsoever to create such exegetical diversions in an attempt to make the Bible’s account sound more reasonable, meaning more scientific, meaning more evolutionary.”

Reason 1:  It’s useless to try and fiddle with the Biblical creation time line because no amount of fiddling can create an account that modern Astronomers and Cosmologists would accept.  Basically, the consensus is that the universe began about 15 billion years ago, and the Earth was created about 4.6 billion years ago.  The Bible (especially in the verses quoted above) specifically states that the Earth and the stars were created on the same day.  Same day, or billions of years apart?

Reason 2: Cosmologists can’t make up their minds about the issue of ultimate origins anyway!  He provides quotes from secular scientists proving this point.  The most striking quote (to me) is by Nobel Prize winning physicist Hannes Alfven.

“Since the Big-Bang hypothesis is unacceptable, the question arises of what other hypothesis we should place in its stead.  The answer is simple and straightforward: none!…But nothing is gained if we try to place another myth in the place which the Big-Bang myth occupies now, not even if this new myth is adorned with the still more beautiful mathematical formulas.” – Hannes Alfven “Cosmology:  Myth or Science?” in Yourgrau and Breck (eds.), Cosmology, History, and Theology, pp. 12-13.

Why should we Christians scramble to rewrite the Bible’s account of creation when the secular scientists cannot even come up with a consensus?

Reason 3:  Christians shouldn’t waste their time trying to conform the Bible’s creation account to the popular paradigm of the day because the REAL reason “modern science” has rejected it, is their desire to rid themselves from any notion of divine purpose.

“What is most offensive to modern science is the idea of cosmological purpose prior to the evolutionary advent of man.”

If there is a God, then man is no longer the author and determiner of his own destiny.  This is blasphemy for the humanist!

So, you see…no amount of twisting the scriptures will ever codify the God-hating intellectuals who engage in myth-making about our past!  They despise it in principal.

To end with a quote:

If we are inevitably going to be looked at as fools for holding to biblical revelation, which is unquestionably the case (1 Corinthians 1:19-21), then why not at least be consistent, straightforward, more offensive fools – fools thoroughly committed to this foolish revelational faith, fools untarnished by the pseudo-wisdom of the world?…Let us side with biblical language and cease our pathetic, unrealizable quest for academic respectability within the world of secular humanistic scholarship.” – Gary North “Dominion Covenant” pg. 13

Missing Link Found!

This is a very important fossil find!  It proves without a doubt that there IS a link between the stupidity of the evolutionary theory and the God-hating theologians (commonly called scientists) who try to legitimize their absurd religious myth!

Christian scientists have been searching for a clear example of this link for quite some time and many are overjoyed by the discovery!

Ok…my sarcasm aside, this “find” is being completely blown out of proportion by the media…(media who are all too willing to legitimize and support the absurd findings of the humanist theologians.)  According to them…the Darwinius Masillae is the so called “missing-link” between man and the rest of the mammal world!

It was really sad to hear grown men talk about our “ancestors” as they looked at the remains of a little animal locked in sandstone.  “So…this is what we used to be?” one reporter asked.  I can’t decide if I should laugh or cry…(I chose laughter because crying isn’t manly.)

Keeping the advice of Dr. Gary North in mind, I decided to “follow the money” before drawing any conclusions about this recent find.

It seems the fossil was discovered, divided into two segments and sold.  The researchers who released the recent paper:  http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723 paid at least a million dollars to complete the specimen for study.

For a million dollars…I’m sure they were beholden to SOMEONE to make DARN SURE their find was “truly astounding.”  Thus, I think the over-hyped “Ida” was born.

The paper itself makes none of the outrageous claims that we hear in the news.  It’s just a lemur-like creature apparently.

Even other evolutionists see problems with the hype:

“It’s an extraordinarily complete, wonderful specimen, but it’s not telling us too much that we didn’t know before,’ says paleoanthropologist Elwyn Simons of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. – quote pulled from Creation Ministries International article.

In the end, I see this “extraordinary find” as just another attempt to slander the Christian God in the public realm, as well as a last-ditch effort to legitimize the one million dollars spent on an interesting though unremarkable fossil.

For a good critique, see the Creation Ministries International article by Don Batten:  http://creation.com/darwin-fossil-ida-hype#endRef8

Book Review: The Mythology of Science

The “Mythology of Science” is another home run by R.J. Rushdoony!  For any of you familiar with my review of “Creation According to the Scriptures” you will remember how dissatisfied I was with it.

This book redeems, supplements, and amplifies “CATTS”.  Rushdoony covers in depth much of the ground left uncovered there.   Looking back, I would suggest that anyone interested in reading these two books, read “The Mythology of Science” first, and then “CATTS.”  (Here is the link to my review of Creation According to the Scriptures:  http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/book-review-creation-according-to-the-scriptures/ )

In the Mythology of Science, Rushdoony begins by demonstrating that the concept of evolution is a cultural myth.   It is shown that unbelieving thought necessarily leads to the death of all meaning (see my book review of “The Death of Meaning”) and a form of pragmatic anarchy results.

In this new cultural myth, men seek to destroy God, and in His place, enthrone themselves.  They seek to make themselves completely sovereign over reality.  Thus, as Rushdoony says, it is not predestination that offends fallen man, but rather, predestination BY GOD.

The horrifying result of such thinking is highlighted over and over again throughout the book, but is specifically addressed in chapter 3, “Orwell’s 1984:  Horror or Hope?”   Man seeks to control every aspect of nature, and this is the type of society that begins to emerge in “1984.”  Though, as Rushdoony notes, the society of Orwell’s “1984″ will seem like Heaven in comparison with what man really has in store.

Over and over again, man’s attempts to control other men is discussed.  Whether by means of drugs, shock therapy, micro chips, or some other devilish scheme, man seeks to govern others.  Man himself becomes the ultimate experiment.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of this book is the way Rushdoony clarifies the false religion surrounding “progress” and progressive change through history.  He shows why any Christian who attempts to hold to this idea of “change” in an ultimate way, essentially ends up destroying the God of Christianity.

Thus, any attempts by Christians to reconcile Christianity with modern notions of evolution end up in theological absurdity.  (Chapter 6 “The Necessity for Creationism” really focuses on this point.)

Chapter 11 discusses Kuhn’s idea of paradigms and compares them (in a way) with Van Til’s notion of worldviews.  It is concluded that Kuhn is right in saying that everyone views the facts through the lens of their paradigm, however, Kuhn was not willing to admit to (or subject himself to) the ultimate and objective reality necessary for such paradigms to exist within.  This leads to a “schizophrenia” of sorts among modern scientists.  They must acknowledge the objective world of the Christian God in order to do their science, but they are not willing to give up the subjectivity necessary for their own god-hood.

Rushdoony includes a few book reviews in the Appendix section which may be a little outdated but are valuable all the same since they demonstrate a presuppositional attitude towards attempts to reconcile evolution and Christian thought.

All in all, I’m giving this book 5 out of 5 stars!  It is simply priceless and will enable me to critique many other aspects of God’s creation in light of the truths presented therein.

Creation Museum Review

He can't see ya if ya don't move!

archyopterix (it IS a bird afterall!)

Well, I’m not going to say much, but…my father and I visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky about a year ago.  It was great, although I was looking for something more of a “museum” instead of a theme park. 

If you’re looking for real indepth scholarly presentations of the latest and greatest scientific expositions in Christiandom, then you’ll be a little disapointed.

However, if you’re looking for a great place to take a youth group then there isn’t a better attraction!  This museum acts as a great introduction to “creationism” and scientific thought from a Christian perspective.

As a side note, please avoid the bookstore at all costs unless you possess above normal restraint!

For more information on the Museum, see their website here: http://www.creationmuseum.org/

The Dealio with this New Stone Found in Israel

Well, yet another attempt to discredit Christianity from an Archeological front is being attempted.

I remember when this whole “Jesus Tomb” controversy arose, I was frantically googling to try and find some refutations of it, or find someone who could filter the facts through a Christian worldview for me, (so that I wouldn’t have to.)

This was, of course, the wrong attitude for me to have.  As a presuppositionalist, I now realize that all facts must be filtered through SOME sort of philosophy of life, therefore, all discoveries made by non-Christians will be “spun” in such a way as to try and discredit Christ.

It is always good though, to have a great source of information on a subject.  With the recent find of this “stone tablet” many folks are saying that early Christians may have “made up” the story of Christ, utilizing early “ressurecting messiah” stories to draw on for their inspiration.

Ben Witherington has a great blog site that refutes all of these sorts of Archeological “silver bullets.”  It’s a great source, and I’ve learned from past experience that it’s a good starting place to get the real story of what is happening in the Archeological world.

Here is his take on the new find:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/death-and-resurrection-of-messiah.html

8 Second Ride on the Eohippus

I didn’t know it at the time, but I was getting mud kicked all over me by a giant rock badger.

I usually went to Rodeos to see the women in tight jeans and cowboy hats, but this time, I was getting more than I bargained for!

There were so many people.  The stands were full, and my friends and I had to end up squeezing in along the fence. I was fortunate enough to get a spot so close to the action in the arena, that the horses, (usually in hot pursuit of some cow) would constantly kick mud right in my direction. I was thrilled.

It had always been a dream of mine to become more than a spectator when it came to horses, and it wasn’t too long after that rodeo, I found out that a friend of mine was an avid rider. She was more than happy to help educate me into the equestrian world.

I had always associated horses with independence, and the outdoors, maybe even with God. I had this image in my head of some old cowboy out on the range with nothing but his horse, and the sunset he was riding into. You can imagine my surprise when my friend began lecturing me on the evolution of the animals.

Evolution inspired in me images of the stark walls of a science lab, or the busy hustle and bustle of a modern life that didnt’ have time to believe in a Creator. These were the almost opposite feelings I got from being around horses. Certainly such a magnificent and useful animal had to have been created as a gift for man.

I was further introduced to the idea in the “Everything Horse Book” by Cheryl Kimball, which details a brief evolutionary history of the horse. Upon closer examination of the topic, I found that the evolutionary history presented in the “Everything Horse Book” was accurate according to modern Evolutionary theory.

I had yet to form that special bond between man and beast, however I felt I needed to liberate my future friend from the evolutionary cast modern society was trying to place him in. We’ve conquered and fenced in the great plains where the horse used to run free, now it seemed like our modern world was trying to do the same for this animals spirit.

Did horses really used to be rock badgers?

I had to hit the library.

The evolutionary tree of life detailed in “The Everything Horse Book” is very accurate according to modern evolutionary theory. We start out with the “Condylarthra”, then we get the Hyracotherium, which is considered the first “horse”. They call this first horse, the “Eohippus”. From the Eohippus, we have many more transitions until we eventually end up with the “Equus” which is the one toed horse of today. This is the common “package” presented by many museums and most books.

I wanted to find out how accurate this really was, and as it turns out, the common view of horse ancestry, isn’t as clear cut as Cheryl Kimball would like it to be. I found that not every scientist agrees with this clear cut picture of horse history.

Biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, “The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks”. Famous paleontologist Niles Eldredge called the textbook picture “lamentable” and “a classical case of paleontologic museology.” (Darwins Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems)

Apparently, even scientists originally disagreed about the history of the horse, and different people drew up different conclusions based on the same data. If the fossil record was so clear cut, how could different scientists come up with different conclusions?

Evolutionist Gerald Kerkut claims that this is due to reconstruction of the fossil skeletons which are usually very incomplete. He says this:

It takes a great deal of reading to find out for any particular genus just how complete the various parts of the body are and how much in the illustrated figures is due to clever reconstruction. The early papers were always careful to indicate by dotted lines or lack of shading the precise limits of the reconstructions, but later authors are not so careful (Gerald A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution).

It seemed to me like the evolutionists had a picture in their minds of what they wanted the fossil skeletons to look like, then they re-constructed the bones to fit their idealized and theoretical image. Are horses really being framed?

In 1841 Richard Owen discovered the Hyracotherium. He didn’t see any connection to the horse at all, but thought the fossil was similar to a modern day “hyrax” or rock badger. Gerald A. Kerkut says “Thus it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse”.

Another scientist Steven Stanley says “The horse … the classic story of one genus fuming into another, Now it’s becoming apparent that there’s an overlap of these genera, and that there were many species belonging to each one” (Bioscience, Dec. 1986).

Even according to the fossil record, certain “transitional” phases were living at the same time! For example, in north-eastern Oregon, the three-toed Neohipparion and one-toed Pliohippus were found in the same layer, proving that they could not have evolved from each other!

I also found out about something else to.

Lou Sunderland in his book “Darwin’s Enigma” found that mounted specimens in the American Museum of Natural History showed an irregularity of rib pairs. Eohippus had 18 pairs, Orohippus had 15 pairs, Pliohippus jumped to 19 pairs, and the modern horse had 18. Why couldn’t evolution make up it’s mind?

If the scientists can’t make up their mind as to how these fossil skeletons should be reconstructed, and if the fossil record shows different “transitional” phases living at the same time, and if evolution can’t decide how many ribs the horse should have, would it be irresponsible of me to disregard the evolutionary tree all together?

I don’t think so.

The horse is a mighty and noble animal. In the end, it seems that the evolutionist is beginning to understand what many an unruly cowboy before already had figured out: you can’t force a horse!

What is Science?

A short clip by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of www.creationontheweb.org

Book Review: Creation According to the Scriptures

“A Presuppositional Defense of Literal, Six-Day Creation”

This is a book of articles written by prominent Christians and edited by P. Andrew Sandlin.

I have to admit that I had very high hopes for this book.

Last year, I had the good fortune of attending a debate between young Earth creationist Dr. Danny Faulkner, and Dr. Hugh Ross; a well known “old-ager.”

After demolishing Danny Faulkner in debate, Dr. Ross made himself available for questions, and was bombarded by a crowd of angry creationists, including Gary Bates, author of the excellent book “Alien Intrusion.”  http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html

To Dr. Ross’ credit, he patiently listened to the same old arguments from this mass of well meaning but upset Christians, and responded in kind.

They were all approaching him about the nature of the facts. They disagreed with his cosmological model, on the basis of factual errors. I had recently begun studying presuppositonal apologetics, and so, my mind was focusing in on a different area.

Could it be, that the model Dr. Ross was proposing, while having possible factual substance, rather, erred on a theological basis? My mind was racing for some angle to attack his model, (a model which I had previously only been scantily aware of.)

I did confront Hugh Ross that evening, but only with objections that I had thought up on the fly. Needless to say, they weren’t very well thought out, and he was ready for them.

I left the exchange with a firm resolve to find, (if any existed) an in-depth presuppositional critique of any world view or model that did not posit a literal 6 day, recent creation.

I had hoped that with this book; my search was over. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Please don’t misunderstand me though. This was an excellent book, and I am glad that I purchased it! It has some very valuable insights, and for the Christian who has never been confronted with (what I consider heresy) “non-literal” readings of Genesis, it serves as a great introduction to the issues. It will teach you how to approach the issue, so that you avoid the pitfalls like those of the well-meaning Christians at the debate I attended.

This book is really meant to defend literal 6-day Creationism (here after called just Creationism) against all comers. Therefore, some of the articles, (like the excellent one by Van Til) focus on pointing out the underlying philosophical issues between the Creationist and the challenger.

I really loved chapter 10, “Creation and Science” by John King, which explicitly highlights the different philosophies by comparing and contrasting the creation account of Genesis with that of Enuma Elish (the Babylonian creation story.) In doing so, King demonstrates that all non-Christian accounts of creation are really anthropomorphic in essence; embracing a chaotic metaphysic centering on the individual. Thus, he is able to draw a distinction between mythology (including supposed “modern science”), and Christian Creationism.

Rushdoony, in my opinion, comes the closet to helping me out in my search for a strong presuppositional critique of Hugh Ross, (and subsequent heretical creation accounts.) Although, Van Til’s essay (chapter 5) goes into the nature of the philosophical distinctions involved, Rushdoony articulates the problem (in chapter 1.)

He focuses strictly on the attempts to undermine a literal 6-day creation account, by stating four ways in which these attempts will have a “deadly” effect.

1. These attempts create a different view of the Bible. (This is explained further in other chapters.)

2. (This is the biggie in my opinion.) “A denial of six-day creation requires a different view of God. Rushdoony says the following:

“Processes theology rapidly takes over and the Biblical God wanes as a humanistic and “evolutionary” God replaces Him.” (page 1.)

3. The people attempting to subvert six-day creation, essentially become “symbolic theology champions.” Self appointed elite interpreters of scripture in the world of the church.

4. The common people (through a literal and simplistic reading) find themselves at odds with these self appointed symbolic champions, and therefore a rift is occurring between the seminary, and the church.

What I was really hoping for, was an entire book, expounding on number 1, and especially number 2 in Rushdoony’s list.

I knew from the day I fist heard Dr. Hugh Ross speak, that he was proclaiming a different God than the one I worshiped. I desperately want a book, article, person, ANYTHING, that will highlight the presuppositions involved in a God like Ross’, and contrast them with the Christian God.

Van Til, Rushdoony, and a few others, define the issue in this book. It is not answered or expounded upon however, and because of that, I have to give the book a 3 out of a possible 5 star rating.

(There was a very surprising chapter, which deserves its own blog, so I’ll reserve comments about it until then. The chapter in question is chapter 12, by C. Paul Ferroni called: “The Reconstructionist View of Science.” Stay tuned!)