Re: `Venus Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews ... evidence against Creation'

AN

Thanks for your reply. But as is my longstanding policy which is stated on each of my blogs' front page, if I receive a private message on a topic covered by one of my blogs, I will usually respond via that blog, after removing the sender's personal identifying information.

[Right (click to enlarge): Illustration of the Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) from Curtis's Botanical Magazine: Wikipedia]

Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Brief quotes are linked to full quotes near the end of the post.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Venus' Flytrap

Thanks for your reply Stephen. I see from your website you seek explanation for carnivorous plant evolution.

Presumably you are referring to my 2007 post, "Re: Carnivorous plants as `Behe's mousetrap' #1" (there was no #2) and/or my 2006 web page "Problems of Evolution: 12. Plants: Carnivorous plants"? In each my request was for "a detailed, step-by-step, Darwinian explanation of how the natural selection of random micromutations produced the ... Venus flytrap":

"I would like to see a detailed, step-by-step, Darwinian explanation of how the natural selection of random micromutations produced the elaborate traps of carnivorous plants, like the pitcher plant and the Venus flytrap. But I suspect there are none, because if there were, the Darwinists would not waste there time on peppered moths and finch beaks! Like Behe's mousetrap, all these parts are needed to be working together simultaneously as a coordinated system to catch insects."

And as for "evolution," I am persuaded by the evidence, both scientific and Biblical, that "evolution," i.e. "the standard scientific theory that `human beings [and all other living things] have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"(my emphasis):

"... perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February. My emphasis)

is false and the true explanation of life's origin and development is my General Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation, i.e."that God created the raw materials of the universe immediately from out-of-nothing, and thereafter He created mediately by working (both naturally and supernaturally) through natural processes and existing materials."

This is my specialty. Venus' Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews (Drosera sp.) as confirmed by gene sequencing.

You commit the fallacies of Equivocation and Begging the question by claiming that "Venus' Flytrap evolved ... from Sundews" when all "gene sequencing" can show is they shared a common ancestor, which is not necessarily evolution. As both Darwin and Dawkins admitted, God could have supernaturally intervened at links in the chains of common descent, in which case it would not be "evolution at all" (my emphasis):

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' .... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker, pp.248-249. My emphasis).

but a form of "divine creation" (my emphasis):

"... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken ... influencing key moments in evolutionary history ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317. My emphasis).

And since I accept Universal Common Ancestry (see my "Why I (a Creationist) Accept Common Ancestry (Not Evolution)" I have no problem if Venus Flytrap shared a common ancestor with Sundews (Drosera sp.). Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia, "Scientists are currently unsure about the evolutionary history of the Venus flytrap" and have only "made hypotheses that the flytrap evolved from Drosera (sundews)":

"The edges of the lobes are fringed by stiff hair-like protrusions or cilia, which mesh together and prevent large prey from escaping. (These protrusions, and the trigger hairs, also known as sensitive hairs, are probably homologous with the tentacles found in this plant's close relatives, the sundews.) Scientists are currently unsure about the evolutionary history of the Venus flytrap; however scientists have made hypotheses that the flytrap evolved from Drosera (sundews)." ("Venus Flytrap: Description," Wikipedia, 3 March 2010 ).

There is certainly no sudden appearance of irreducible complexity here.

You are (as is typical with evolutionists in my experience), confusing common ancestry with "irreducible complexity." But the founder of the modern Theory of Irreducible Complexity, Prof. Michael Behe, accepts "the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor)":

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," pp.5-6).

and has pointed out (as the did the then world's leading Darwinist, the late Ernst Mayr) that the relationship of common ancestry is not the same as Darwinism mechanism of the natural selection of random mutations:

"Discrimination among his various theories has not been helped by the fact that Darwin ... in ... the Origin and that he ascribed many phenomena ... to natural selection when they were really the consequences of common descent. ... I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories ... . (2) Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor ... (5) Natural selection. According to this theory .... The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. ... someone might claim that indeed these five theories are a logically inseparable package and that Darwin was quite correct in treating them as such. This claim, however, is refuted by the fact ... that most evolutionists in the immediate post-1859 period-that is, authors who had accepted the first theory- rejected one or several of Darwin's other four theories. This shows that the five theories are not one indivisible whole." (Mayr, E.W , 1991, "One Long Argument," pp.36-37).

Therefore, "evidence of common descent is not evidence of natural selection" and so "knowledge of the sequence ... of relevant proteins [and DNA]... is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection":

"... EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION. Homologies among proteins (or organisms) are the evidence for descent with modification ... Natural selection, however, is a ... mechanism - and so must be supported by other evidence if the question is not to be begged. This, of course, is a well-known distinction (Mayr 1991). Yet ... the distinction is often overlooked. ... knowledge of the sequence, structure, and function of relevant proteins is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection. Gene duplication is not a Darwinian explanation because duplication points only to common descent, not to the mechanism of evolution." (Behe M.J., 2000, "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade," July 31. Emphasis original.)

which is all that the Theory of Irreducible Complexity challenges:

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. ... critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution." (Behe, 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.39. Emphasis original).

The trap of VFT is actually less complex than that of Drosera.

That only means it has less parts. But having less parts, is actually supportive of Irreducible Complexity, as Behe's mousetrap example illustrates:

"An irreducibly complex object will be composed of several parts, all of which contribute to the function. To avoid the problems encountered with extremely complex objects ... I will begin with a simple mechanical example: the humble mousetrap. ... [which] consist of a number of parts ... (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied, and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. (There are also assorted staples to hold the system together.) The second step in determining if a system is irreducibly complex is to ask if all the components are required for the function. In this example, the answer is clearly yes. .... If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it; in order to use a trap like that you would have to chase the mouse around while holding the trap open."(Behe, 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.42).

So, this case is actually more evidence against Creation.

Thanks for showing by your "against Creation" that like Darwin your primary motivation is not scientific but religious, i.e. anti-religious

"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change ... ... hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power ... or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." (Darwin, C.R., 1874, "The Descent of Man," p.92. My emphasis).

Also you are also committing the fallacy of Circular Reasoning. That is, you assumed "evolution" in the premises of your argument that "Venus' Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews" and then you concluded that this is "evidence against Creation."

Hope that helps. Please ask if you have any further questions. ~AN

Thanks, but it did not help, except to give me something to blog about! Yours is just the same old Darwinist anti-Christian, "deceiving and being deceived" (2Tim 3:13), "powerful delusion" (2Th 2:11), due to your mind having been taken "captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on ... the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Col 2:8), namely "Naturalism ... the metaphysical position that `nature is all there is ...'," that I experienced in my ~11 years of debating evolutionists between 1993-2005.

Only when you can actually cite in a peer-reviewed scientific journal a fully documented and detailed explanation of how exactly "Venus' Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews (Drosera sp.)" by the natural selection of random micromutations would you have shown that the Venus Flytrap is not irreducibly complex.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"The predicament is easily resolved when a critical point is recalled: EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION. Homologies among proteins (or organisms) are the evidence for descent with modification - that is, for evolution. Natural selection, however, is a proposed explanation for how evolution might take place - its mechanism - and so must be supported by other evidence if the question is not to be begged. This, of course, is a well-known distinction (Mayr 1991). Yet, from reviewers' responses to my book, the distinction is often overlooked. Knowledge of homology is certainly very useful, can give us a good idea of the path of descent, and can constrain our hypotheses. Nonetheless, knowledge of the sequence, structure, and function of relevant proteins is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection. Gene duplication is not a Darwinian explanation because duplication points only to common descent, not to the mechanism of evolution." (Behe M.J., 2000, "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison," Discovery Institute, July 31. Emphasis original.)

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism-natural selection working on variation-might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, pp.5-6).

"," Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin, C., 1872, "Origin of Species", 6th ed., New York University Press: New York, 1988, p.154]. It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mivart's concern over the incipient stages of new structures to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box, p.39. Emphasis original).

"The first step in determining irreducible complexity is to specify both the function of the system and all system components. An irreducibly complex object will be composed of several parts, all of which contribute to the function. To avoid the problems encountered with extremely complex objects (such as eyes, beetles, or other multicellular biological systems) I will begin with a simple mechanical example: the humble mousetrap. The function of a mousetrap is to immobilize a mouse so that it can't perform such unfriendly acts as chewing through sacks of flour or electrical cords, or leaving little reminders of its presence in unswept comers. The mousetraps that my family uses consist of a number of parts (Figure 2-2): (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied, and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. (There are also assorted staples to hold the system together.) The second step in determining if a system is irreducibly complex is to ask if all the components are required for the function. In this example, the answer is clearly yes. Suppose that while reading one evening, you hear the patter of little feet in the pantry, and you go to the utility drawer to get a mousetrap. Unfortunately, due to faulty manufacture, the trap is missing one of the parts listed above. Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it; in order to use a trap like that you would have to chase the mouse around while holding the trap open." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.42).

"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Any one with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book [The Origin of Species], that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." (Darwin, C.R., 1874., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, Second edition, Reprinted, 1922, p.92).

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non- miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.248-249).

"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317).

"Discrimination among his various theories has not been helped by the fact that Darwin treated speciation under natural selection in ... the Origin and that he ascribed many phenomena, particularly those of geographic distribution, to natural selection when they were really the consequences of common descent. Under the circumstances I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However, when later authors referred to Darwin's theory they invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind: (1) Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant nor recently created nor perpetually cycling but rather is steadily changing and that organisms are transformed in time. (2) Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth. (3) Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding," that is, by the establishment of geographically isolated founder populations that evolve into new species. (4) Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type. (5) Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about through the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. For Darwin himself these five theories were apparently a unity, and someone might claim that indeed these five theories are a logically inseparable package and that Darwin was quite correct in treating them as such. This claim, however, is refuted by the fact ... that most evolutionists in the immediate post-1859 period-that is, authors who had accepted the first theory- rejected one or several of Darwin's other four theories. This shows that the five theories are not one indivisible whole." (Mayr, E.W , 1991, "One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought," Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, pp.36-37).

"In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that `the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.' Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)

Re: `Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist'

James

This is my response to your comment under my post, "What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design" and in particular to

[Above (click to enlarge): Diagram of my version of Pascal's Wager.]

the section:

"Pascal's Wager My simplified form of Pascal's Wager that I employed in debates with atheists is:

Neither the atheist, nor the Christian, can absolutely prove that his position is true. Nevertheless the consequences for either the atheist or the Christian being right (or wrong) is clear. If atheism is true, then both the atheist and Christian will die and neither will know that the atheist was right. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then the atheist and Christian will die (or Jesus will return) and both will know that the Christian was right. Moreover, if the atheist was right, he would have gained nothing and the Christian would have lost nothing (I personally have had a great life since becoming a Christian in 1967). But if the Christian was right, the atheist would have lost everything and the Christian would have gained everything!"

----- Original Message -----
From: james roy
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:04 AM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Desig....

>Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist.

No. Pascal was a genius, being a "mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. ... a child prodigy who ... was a mathematician of the first order":

"Blaise Pascal [1623-1662] ... was a French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. He was a child prodigy who was educated by his father, a civil servant. Pascal's earliest work was in the natural and applied sciences where he made important contributions to the construction of mechanical calculators, the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum .... Pascal also wrote in defense of the scientific method. Pascal was a mathematician of the first order. He helped create two major new areas of research. He wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of sixteen, and later corresponded with Pierre de Fermat on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science." ("Blaise Pascal," Wikipedia, 23 January 2010).

Indeed according to this site, Pascal is in the top 10 of all known geniuses, with an estimated IQ of 195:

"6. Blaise Pascal IQ: 195 Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, religious philosopher, and master of prose. He laid the foundation for the modern theory of probabilities, formulated what came to be known as Pascal's law of pressure, and propagated a religious doctrine that taught the experience of God through the heart rather than through reason. The establishment of his principle of intuitionism had an impact on such later philosophers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Henri Bergson and also on the Existentialists." ("Top 10 Geniuses," Listverse, October 6, 2007)

And, as Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft points out, of all the arguments for believing in the existence of God, Pascal thought his Wager was the strongest:

"Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensees, he wrote, `This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it.' That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most sceptical philosophers who ever wrote." (Kreeft, P., "Argument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, P., "Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988.)

I myself debated my version of Pascal's Wager against atheists on creation/evolution/design Internet discussion groups open to all-comers between (1993-2005) and no atheist ever refuted my arguments. Here they are again, point-by-point (with updates):

1. Neither the atheist, nor the Christian, can absolutely prove that his position is true.

2. Nevertheless the consequences for either the atheist or the Christian being right (or wrong) is clear.

3. If atheism is true, then both the atheist and Christian will die and neither will know that the atheist was right.

4. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then the atheist and Christian will die (or Jesus will return) and both will know that the Christian was right.

5. Moreover, if the atheist was right, he would have gained nothing and the Christian would have lost nothing.

6. But if the Christian was right, the atheist would have lost everything and the Christian would have gained everything!"

Each of the above 6 points of my Pascal's Wager argument are patently true, given historic Christian Biblical teaching, e.g. as set forth in major creeds like the Westminster Confession of Faith:

"SECTION II.-The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect, and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. [Matt. xxv. 31-40; Rom. ii. 5, 6; ix. 22, 23. Matt. xxv. 21; Acts iii. 19; 2 Thess. i. 7-10]" (Hodge, A.A., 1869, "The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding The Westminster Confession," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, 1958, Reprinted, 1983, p.389. Emphasis original).

that if Christianity is true, then Christians ("the righteous") will "go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord" and non-Christians ("the wicked") will "be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord."

>Basically what it says is that if you believe in God, the worst you can expect is the same as the unbeliever, but the best you can expect is eternal life. However, if you don't believe in God, the best you can expect is nothing, but the worst you can expect is eternal damnation. So therefore it's safest to believe in God.

No. Between the atheist and the Christian it is not a case of "the worst you can expect " and "the best you can expect." If Christianity is true, then according to historic Biblical Christianity (see above), Christians will receive "eternal life" and "the unbeliever" will receive "eternal damnation."

Former atheist turned Christian Patrick Glynn confirms this: "If we bet against God, and revelation proves to be true, we will suffer eternal torment. If we bet for God, and revelation proves to have been an illusion, we lose nothing":

"Responding to the first generation of modern atheistic rationalists in the seventeenth century, the mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal offered an interesting `thought experiment' concerning religious belief. He conceived of the issue as a bet or wager. His reasoning was as follows: Revelation teaches that God rewards faithful believers with eternal happiness and that those who reject God suffer eternal torment after death. There is no way for reason, Pascal conceded to his contemporaries, to know whether revelation's claim is true. But we may consider our life as a wager (one that, in the nature of things, we can't avoid). If we bet against God, and revelation proves to be true, we will suffer eternal torment. If we bet for God, and revelation proves to have been an illusion, we lose nothing, for we shall cease to exist at death in any case." (Glynn, P., 1997, "God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World," Forum: Rocklin CA, pp.76-77).

>But how is it possible to believe in something based on its potential benefits?

We all do! We all make decisions every day based on the "potential benefits" of a thing or a course of action, weighed against its potential costs. And where the potential benefits are great and the costs low, e.g. "spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million" then "No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases." But "deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal", :

"Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new `miracle drug' that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free- wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to? Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do-to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true? Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million? No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to `bet' on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the prize." (Kreeft, P., "Argument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, 1988).

>Belief comes out of an interpretation of evidence, and if it employs pro/con lists, those lists can only be used to establish the relative evidential merits of each possibility.

This misunderstands the background and specific purpose of Pascal's Wager, i.e. it accepts, for the sake of argument, the sceptics' attitude of his day that had lost "confidence in reason to prove God's existence" and so"The Wager appeals not to a high ideal ... but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy":

"To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief? Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. " (Kreeft, 1988).

That is, "Pascal prefaces his argument with" the sceptic's position that, "Either God is, or he is not. ... Reason cannot decide this question":

"Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, `Let us now speak according to our natural lights.' Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally. Pascal says, `Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?' (Kreeft, 1988).

Elsewhere in his Pensees Pascal gave good reasons for believing that Christianity is true:

"To bring some men to the point of faith, Pascal knew that it was necessary to remind them of the odds that are at stake. Hence his celebrated wager, Turnell, M., transl., "Pascal's Pensees," Harvill Press, London, 1962, pp. 200 ff.] in which he challenges men to gamble their lives on the possibility that Christianity might be true. We cannot see God. We cannot prove the truth of the gospel to exclude every possible doubt. We can only find out the truth of Christianity by risking our whole lives on it. ... Sometimes Pascal's teaching is classified as voluntarism, the implication being that he sets greater store by the will than by the intellect. It is even represented as a kind of self-inflicted brain-washing, in which the will to believe is allowed to banish all intellectual considerations. But this is a caricature. It neglects to mention that the idea of the wager was addressed to the sporting men of the day, reminding them of a greater game played at infinitely greater odds. It does not take into account the fact that Pascal devoted a great deal of energy to rational argument. [Turnell, M., transl., "Pascal's Pensees," Harvill Press, London, 1962, pp.231ff, 281ff., 291]" (Brown, C. , 1969, "Philosophy and the Christian Faith," Tyndale Press: London, pp.59-60).

But the problem with atheists is that they are so prejudiced against the existence of the Christian God to whom they will have "to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil":

"OF THE LAST JUDGMENT. SECTION I.-God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, [Acts xvii. 31] to whom all power and judgment is given of tho Father, [John v. 22, 27] In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, [1 Cor. vi. 3; Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4] but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. [2 Cor. v. 10; Eccles. xii. 14; Rom. ii. 16; xiv. 10, 12; Matt. xii. 36, 37]" (Hodge, 1869, p.389. Emphasis original).

that what the atheists include in their their "pro/con lists," before they even get to the "interpretation of evidence," ensures that atheism always `wins'.

For example, the evidence is overwhelming that "The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus!" and bears the image of His crucified and resurrected body! But atheists just reject that possibility out of hand, and chose instead the best of the remaining atheistic alternatives. This has become such an ingrained habit of thought that atheists in my experience do this automatically without even being aware of the fallaciousness of their circular reasoning.

Your own "Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist" is a typical example of how atheists are so prejudiced against the existence of the Christian God that they rule out in advance as "completely pointless" any evidence for His existence. Therefore what remains as evidence in the atheists' "pro/con lists" makes it a foregone conclusion that the atheists' "interpretation of [that] evidence" is that for them atheism is true.

>If anyone thinks that God will reward a belief in him that is based on the 'best possible outcome', then they're playing God for a fool.

No. The Bible says that God will reward belief in Jesus with eternal life:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

There are no stated pre-conditions of the reasons for that belief, i.e. fear of Hell, or desire of Heaven, or love of God, etc. And as Kreeft says above:

"If you believe in God only as a bet, it is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start."

Another Christian philosopher, Nicolas Rescher also makes the point that Pascal's Wager argument is only a first step:

"The Wager Argument as a First Step No doubt God must be expected to have a value framework akin to the human in this regard; at any rate, he, like us, would prefer to be loved for himself alone rather than for strictly prudential motives. Still, the journey toward disinterested love must make a start someplace. A human lover would certainly rather have that love reciprocated for his wealth or beaux yeux than not reciprocated at all. Wisely he recognizes that the love which begins in crass considerations of personal advantage, social conformity, or parental pressure may in time be purified by habit and the natural evolution of shared concerns into genuine communion and true affection." (Rescher, N., "Pascal's Wager: A Study of Practical Reasoning in Philosophical Theology," University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame IA, 1985, p.121. Emphasis original).

>And if God sees and hears all, there's a good chance he's smarter than that.

A God who "sees and hears all" would also be able to see into an atheists' heart and know what the real motive behind that atheist's high-sounding reasons why God (who the atheist doesn't believe exists) would not "reward a belief in him that is based on the 'best possible outcome'."

The bottom line is that you have wagered everything on what you consider to be "a good chance" that the Christian God doesn't exist. But " the atheist ... If, after death, he should find out that there is a God, his loss has been irreparable ... death has opened the door to an ultimate and eternal lostness. ... It is an all-or-nothing gamble of himself, thrust into the slot machine of life. It is a faith beyond the scope of reason":

"But that is not all that is lost for the atheist. One other aspect must be stated: if the atheist is wrong, there is no recovery of that which he has lost. This was precisely Pascal's wager: Should a man be in error in supposing the Christian religion to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake. But how irreparable is his loss, and how inescapable is his danger should he err in supposing it to be false. [Pascal, Pensees] ... Pascal ... had everything the Christian faith promised to him, including the climactic hope beyond the grave. Should, however, death be the end, he did not sense any loss, for contentment in life was still his. .... The atheist, on the other hand, having rejected God ... If, after death, he should find out that there is a God, his loss has been irreparable; for not only did contentment and peace elude him in this life, but death has opened the door to an ultimate and eternal lostness. All judgments bring with them a margin of error. But no judgment ought to carry with it the potential for so irretrievable a loss that every possible gain is unworthy of merit. The atheist makes precisely such a hazardous judgment. It is an all-or-nothing gamble of himself, thrust into the slot machine of life. It is a faith beyond the scope of reason. The atheist risks everything for the present and the future, on the basis of a belief that he is uncaused by any intelligent being. Man just happens to be here. He is willing to live and die in that belief-a very high price to pay for conjecture." (Zacharias, R.K., 1990, "A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1994, pp.165-166).

The fact is, as Pascal realised, it is not the lack of "reason" that prevents an atheist from becoming a Christian, but the atheist's "passions" supported by his atheistic lifestyle. Pascal's practical advice to the atheist is to not "Concentrate ... on .... proofs of God's existence but ... diminishing your passions." And one practical way to do that is for the atheist to change their atheistic lifestyle and start behaving "just as if they did believe":

"Because the whole argument moves on the practical rather than the theoretical level, it is fitting that Pascal next imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. Pascal then answers the objection with stunningly practical psychology, with the suggestion that the prospective convert `act into' his belief if he cannot yet `act out' of it. If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have... . They behaved just as if they did believe. .... living the Faith can be a way of getting the Faith... As Pascal says: `That will make you believe quite naturally and will make you more docile.' `But that is what I am afraid of.' `But why? What have you to lose?" (Kreeft, 1988)

For example an atheist could do what I, a former atheist, did 40+ years ago. Start going to church, make friends of Christian people, join in singing Christian hymns, listen to the Bible being preached. In short meet God half-way. The Bible promises that if you "Come near to God ... he will come near to you" (James 4:8)

Millions of Christians down through the ages (including me), have tried coming near to God and found that His promise is true that He will then come near to you. But if you are not willing to meet God halfway, then He will never meet you half-way. Then if Christianity is true (as Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks and The Shroud of Turin prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is) and you are still a non-Christian when you die, then you will find out, too late, that you bet your life on a losing `horse' and lost everything:

"Pascal states the argument this way: `You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist. If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.' As Pascal says, `I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.' If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.'" (Kreeft, 1988).

Your wager-your consequences.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!

Re: Baxter, Darwin, predestination, damnation, etc

Tom

I have just realised that I never answered your comment in May 2009 under my post,

[Right: "The Reformed Pastor" (1656) by Richard Baxter (1615-1691). See below]

"Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does he explain the transition from a more "primitive" blood-clotting system?" after promising to do so in a separate post. My apologies. I was reminded by someone else's comment on your comment. Although you probably have long since stopped checking, I will now answer your comment. Your words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: tom quick
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:56 AM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does h....

>I'm not a biologist. I'm a chemical engineer who reads Packer and Proust.

Presumably that is J.I. Packer (1926-), the evangelical Christian theologian, some of whose books I own and have read. I am unfamiliar with the works of Marcel Proust (1871-1922) so I won't comment on him.

>But a few months ago I saw the great joust on PBS over irreducible complexity in Pennsylvania.

Being an Australian, I did not see that program. I have taken a `sabbatical' from Creation/Evolution/Design, my interests having shifted over to my other blogs The Shroud of Turin and

[Above (click to enlarge): Negative of a negative and therefore positive photograph of the face of the Man on the Shroud of Turin: Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, p.28:

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'" (Wilson, I. , 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189).]

Jesus is Jehovah! The Shroud of Turin indirectly defeats atheistic evolution (i.e. Darwinism) because the evidence is overwhelming that it is the burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of His flogged, crowned with thorns, crucified, dead, buried and resurrected body! See my post, "The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus!"

>Judging from the minutiae under discussion, the discussion seemed less relevant compared to the superior attitudes shown by the so-called scientists.

This is a problem for Irreducible Complexity (IC). The average person (including even the average scientist) probably cannot understand "the minutiae" or is bored by it.

But the average person can understand that an arrogant attitude is probably a mask to cover an underlying insecurity about the correctness of one's position.

>So I took it upon myself to read a good bit of Dobzhansky and Darwin (Origin of the Species) in order tho try and learn what made these scientists so pontifically wise.

You don't mention what book(s) by Dobzhansky, i.e. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) the leading founder of the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis you had read. I have many of Dobzhansky's books.

There is no doubt that Dobzhansky and Darwin were wise, and they certainly knew their biology. The problem was their naturalist (anti-supernaturalist) and therefore anti-Christian philosophy. If Christianity is true (which Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks and the Shroud of Turin (to mention only two of many other Christian lines of evidence) prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is, then Naturalism and Darwinism are false!

>... In the greater sense what does it matter? On the one hand, selection occurs. It's the basis of agriculture as we know it. But it's in the past, and there's nothing useful gained in debating it, that I can see. On the other hand, what makes Darwin worthy of such laud and honor?

Darwin is indeed "worthy of ... laud and honor" but only to the extent that he was a great scientist who discovered truth about the natural world that God put there in the first place.

But the operative word is "such laud and honor." Darwin is lauded and honoured by those with the same anti-supernaturalist and therefore anti-Christian philosophy that he had because they falsely think that Darwin confirmed there was no need for God in creation and therefore Christianity is irrelevant.

But Darwin assumed as a first principle of his theory that there was no Christian God who could or would intervene supernaturally in chains of common descent. Both he and his modern disciple Dawkins admitted, that if there was such a God who did intervene supernaturally in chains of common descent, then it "was not evolution at all":

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249. Emphasis original)

but a form of "divine creation":

"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317. Emphasis original)

>Now for Packer. I'm in the middle of reading his PhD thesis on Baxter.

I assume you mean Packer's PhD thesis on Baxter which has been published in a book, Packer, J.I., "The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter," Paternoster, 2003. There is an online review of this book which I don't agree with, having read Packer's Introduction to Baxter's "The Reformed Pastor," in which Packer is well aware of Baxter's faults.

>I often see Baxter seeking a unity - trying to reconcile the incongruities of Calvinism (such as double predestination making God the author of evil), or trying to thread a line between Antinomianism and legalism. Controversial in his time, tremendously well educated, yet bound to overreach. A hundred years later what he did was forgotten in the details, but remembered in a holistic sense, and he became a touchstone for both Wesleyans and Unitarians.

Although I own Baxter's "The Reformed Pastor," I haven't read it (except now the Introduction by Packer). I am not really up on Baxter or his attempts to "reconcile the incongruities of Calvinism (such as double predestination ...)." But I am aware that Baxter was a 17th century Puritan who by pastoral visitation converted almost an entire town (Kiddderminster) to Christianity!

But I myself am a life-long Calvinist and I don't believe in "double predestination" i.e. God not only positively predestined some (the elect) to salvation (which I do accept) but also God positively predestined the rest (the reprobate) to damnation. I regard that position as hyper-Calvinism, even though it may well have been what "Calvinism" meant in Baxter's day (i.e. it was the majority position).

The Calvinist position which I hold (because I believe it is the Biblical one) is single predestination, i,e. God only positively predestined some (the elect) to salvation and so negatively passes over the rest (the reprobate) leaving them to the consequences of their sin, which is damnation.

This is the view Calvin held,as evident in that

[Left: John Calvin (1509-1564): Wendel, F., "Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (1963)." ]

while he calls "predestination the eternal decree of God by which he ... ordains some to eternal life, the others to eternal damnation," he clarifies the latter as being that God "lets go of the others and leaves them":

"But Calvin gave forcible emphasis to the distinction between predestination and foreknowledge. `We say rightly that [God] foresees all things, even as he disposes of them; but it is confusing everything to say that God elects and rejects according to his foresight of this or that. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have always been and eternally remain under his observation, so that nothing is either future or past to his knowledge: he sees and regards them in the truth, as though they were before his face. We say that this foreknowledge extends throughout the circuit of the world and over all his creatures. We call predestination the eternal decree of God by which he decided what he would do with each man. For he does not create them all in like condition, but ordains some to eternal life, the others to eternal damnation.' [Inst. III, 21, 5] The distinction was vital to him, for we find him frequently returning to it even in his sermons, in order to throw into relief the absolutely gratuitous nature of election. Election, like reprobation, is an entirely free act of the divine will. `If we ask why God takes pity on some, and why he lets go of the others and leaves them, there is no other answer but that it pleased him to do so.' [Sermon on Ephesians 1.3-4]" (Wendel, F., 1963, "Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought," [1950], Mairet, P., transl., Fontana: London, Reprinted, 1965, pp.272-273).

That is, God actively predestines the elect to salvation but passively passes over the non-elect or reprobate. God does not actively elect the reprobate to damnation. Note that if any of the reprobate wanted to be saved God would not reject them:

Rev 22:17. The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Jn 6:37. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

This is confirmed by leading Reformed (Calvinist) systematic theologian, Louis Berkhof (1873-1957), that "Predestination includes two parts ... election and reprobation" with "Election" being . "the election of individuals unto salvation" and "Reprobation" being "God's eternal purpose to pass some men by":

"Predestination. Predestination is the plan or purpose of God respecting His moral creatures. It pertains to men, both good and bad, to angels and devils, and to Christ as the Mediator. Predestination includes two parts, namely, election and reprobation." (Berkhof, L., 1960, "A Summary of Christian Doctrine," Banner of Truth Trust: London, Third Impression, 1968, p.43)

"Election. The Bible speaks of election in more than one sense, as (1) the election of Israel as the Old Testament people of God, Deut. 4:37; 7:6-8; 10:15; Hos. 13:5; (2) the election of persons to some special office or service, Deut. 18:5; I Sam. 10:24; Ps. 78:70; and (3) the election of individuals unto salvation, Matt. 22:14; Rom. 11:5; Eph. 1:4. The last is the election to which we refer in this connection. It may be defined as God's eternal purpose to save some of the human race in and by Jesus Christ." (Berkhof, 1960, pp.43-44)

"Reprobation. The doctrine of election naturally implies that God did not intend to save all. If He purposed to save some, He naturally also purposed not to save others. This is also in harmony with the teachings of Scripture, Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:13, 17, 18, 21, 22; 11:7, 8; II Pet. 2:9; Jude 4. Reprobation may be defined as God's eternal purpose to pass some men by with the operation of His special grace, and to punish them for their sin. It really embodies a twofold purpose therefore: (1) to pass some by in the bestowal of saving grace; and (2) to punish them for their sins." (Berkhof, 1960, p.44).

The bottom line is that "all men have forfeited the blessings of God" by their sin and God does not "owe... man eternal salvation":

"Objection to Predestination It is sometimes said that the doctrine of predestination exposes God to the charge of injustice. But this is hardly correct. We could speak of injustice only if man had a claim on God, and God owed man eternal salvation. But the situation is entirely different if all men have forfeited the blessings of God, as they have. No one has the right to call God to account for electing some and rejecting others. He would have been perfectly just, if He had not saved any, Matt. 20:14, 15; Rom. 9:14, 15." (Berkhof, 1960, p.44. Emphasis original).

But as for damnation, since having read Clark H. Pinnock's "Conditional View" chapter in "Four Views of Hell," 1997), I am persuaded by the weight of Biblical evidence that Hell is not everlasting conscious punishment, i.e. "the experience of endless torment ... eternal punishing" but rather it is "a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed" and which finally, after each person receives no more and no less than the just punishment due for their sins, terminates in "annihilation":

"Nevertheless, the Bible does leave us a strong general impression in regard to the nature of hell-the impression of final, irreversible destruction, of closure with God. The language and imagery used by Scripture is so powerful in that direction that it is surprising that more theologians have not picked up on it before now. The Bible uses the language of death and destruction, of ruin and perishing, when it speaks of the fate of the impenitent wicked. It uses the imagery of fire that consumes whatever is thrown into it; linking together images of fire and destruction suggests annihilation. One receives the impression that `eternal punishment' refers to a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed rather than to the experience of endless torment (i.e., eternal punishing). Although there are many good reasons for questioning the traditional view of the nature of hell, the most important reason is the fact that the Bible does not teach it. Contrary to the loud claims of the traditionalists, it is not a biblical doctrine. .... The Bible gives a strong impression to any honest reader that hell denotes final destruction, so the burden of proof rests with those who refuse to believe and accept this teaching." (Pinnock, C.H., "The Conditional View," in Crockett, W.V., ed., "Four Views on Hell," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, Reprinted, 1996, pp.144-145).

In "the Old Testament ... the basic imagery overwhelmingly denotes destruction and perishing and sets the tone for the New Testament doctrine":

"The Old Testament gives us a clear picture of the end of the wicked in terms of destruction and supplies the basic imagery of divine judgment for the New Testament to use. In Psalm 37, for example, we read that the wicked will fade like the grass and wither like the herb (v. 2), that they will be cut off and be no more (vv. 9-10), that they will perish and vanish like smoke (v. 20), and that they will be altogether destroyed (v. 38). One finds the same imagery in an oracle from the prophet Malachi: `Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,' says the LORD Almighty. `Not a root or a branch will be left to them' (Mal. 4:1-2). While it is true that the point of reference for these warnings in the Old Testament is this-worldly, the basic imagery overwhelmingly denotes destruction and perishing and sets the tone for the New Testament doctrine." (Pinnock, 1992, p.145).

Also in "the New Testament ... Jesus said many things that support the impression that the Old Testament gives of hell as final destruction":

"Turning to the New Testament, Jesus' teaching about the eternal destiny of the wicked is bold in its warnings but modest when it comes to precise description. Refraining from creating a clear picture of hell, he did not dwell on the act of damnation or on the torments of the damned (unlike the Apocalypse of Peter). Jesus' words on the subject are poised to underline the importance of the decision that needs to be made here and now and not to deal in speculations about the exact nature of heaven and hell. He did not speak of hell in order to convey information about it as a place beyond present human experience and then use that data to press the decision the gospel calls for. At the same time, Jesus said many things that support the impression that the Old Testament gives of hell as final destruction. Our Lord spoke plainly of God's judgment as the annihilation of the wicked when he warned about God's ability to destroy body and soul in hell (Matt. 10:28). He was echoing the terms that John the Baptist had used when he pictured the wicked as dry wood about to be thrown into the fire and chaff about to be burned (Matt. 3:10, 12). Jesus warned that the wicked would be cast into hell (Matt. 5:30), like garbage thrown into gehenna-an allusion to the valley outside Jerusalem where sacrifices were once offered to Moloch (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6) and where garbage may have smoldered and burned in Jesus' day. The wicked would be burned up just like weeds thrown into the fire (Matt. 13:30, 42, 49-50). Thus the impression Jesus leaves us with is a strong one: The impenitent wicked can expect to be destroyed by the wrath of God." (Pinnock, 1992, p.145).

As did the "apostle Paul create... the same impression when he wrote of the everlasting destruction that would come upon unrepentant sinners":

"The apostle Paul creates the same impression when he wrote of the everlasting destruction that would come upon unrepentant sinners (2 Thess. 1:9). He warned that the wicked would reap corruption (Gal. 6:8) and stated that God would destroy the wicked (1 Cor. 3:17; Phil. 1:28); he spoke of their fate as a death that they deserved to die (Rom. 1:32), the wages of their sins (6:23). Concerning the wicked, the apostle stated plainly and concisely: `Their destiny is destruction' (Phil. 3:19). In all these verses, Paul made it clear that hell would mean termination." (Pinnock, 1992, p.146).

Likewise the apostle "Peter spoke of the `destruction of ungodly men' " and "throughout ... the New Testament employs images of death, perishing, destruction, and corruption to describe the end of the wicked. ... final destruction":

"It is no different in any other New Testament book. Peter spoke of the `destruction of ungodly men' (2 Peter 3:7) and of false teachers who denied the Lord, thus bringing upon themselves `swift destruction' (2:1, 3). He said that they would be like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah that were burned to ashes (2:6), and that they would perish like the ancient world perished in the great Flood (3:6-7). The author of Hebrews likewise referred to the wicked who shrank back and would be destroyed (Heb. 10:39). Jude pointed to Sodom as an analogy to God's final judgment, being the city that underwent `the punishment of eternal fire' (Jude 7). Similarly, the apocalypse of John speaks both of a lake of fire that will consume the wicked and of the second death (Rev. 20:14-15). Throughout its pages, following the Old Testament lead, the New Testament employs images of death, perishing, destruction, and corruption to describe the end of the wicked. A fair person would have to conclude from such texts that the Bible can reasonably be read to teach the final destruction of the wicked. " (Pinnock, 1992, pp.146-147).

See also Pinnock, C.H., 2005, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent," 11 May; and Fudge, E., 1984, "The Final End of the Wicked," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 27.3, September, pp.325-334 (PDF).

>I see similar overreaching with Darwinism, as well as that halo effect a century after. Darwin's Origin of Species collection of animal stories implies evolution in a macro sense.

This is another point about Darwin being "worthy of such laud and honor." Darwin's observations only helped establish one mechanism (the natural selection of chance variations) of micro-evolution, i.e. change at or within the species level. Darwin then (as Darwinists have continued to do), pursuant to his (their) anti-supernaturalist and therefore anti-Christian philosophy, extrapolated his limited observations to the whole of nature, past and present.

>This is what launched Jack London and Adolph Hitler, and it carries the poison of racism. Yet all this detail is forgotten, and Darwin has now become a friendly bust in the bourgeois "scientist's" library. He is given credit for scientific advances in genetics and biology which occurred in spite of him (Dobzhansky points out that he was generally discarded as useful to science by 1900, and is immortalized in the selection coefficient named for him).

Darwin has been largely superseded and even discarded as wrong in biology. But Darwin's value is as a token symbol, indeed a totem, in anti-supernaturalism's war against God and especially Christianity with its God who supernaturally intervenes in His creation.

But I would be interested in a reference to where "Dobzhansky points out that he [Darwin] was generally discarded as useful to science by 1900."

>So what hath Darwinism (aka Origin of Species) wrought? Death camps, gulags, modern racisms, World War 2, etc. - in short, a collection of nihilisms.

It has been so swept under the carpet that it is not realised that Darwin gave scientific support to not just racism but racial extermination, when he predicted that "A some future period .. the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world:"

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Darwin, C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242)

In the above, Darwin, writing in 1871, especially singled out the "Australian" aborigine as lying between " the Caucasian" and "the gorilla" and so he provided scientific support for the then British Government's (there was no Australian government until 1910) policy of exterminating the Australian aborigines.

>While it is claimed now that Darwinism answers everything (and it goes without saying that those nihilisms should be ignored for the sake of polite conversation with the "scientists"), in reality it answers nothing.

When it is said, or implied, that "Darwinism answers everything" what is meant is that Naturalism, i.e. "nature is all there is" (Wikipedia), there is no supernatural, no God, and Christianity is false, is itself false. That is because :Christianity is true as proven by: 1) the resurrection of Jesus; 2) Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks (Dn 9:24) and 3) the Shroud of Turin, which all defeat all naturalistic explanations. .

I'm happier with what Christ has wrought: hospitals, an end to slavery, literacy and schools, etc. And always hope.

You could have added science itself, because as the non-Christians Alfred North Whitehead and Loren Eiseley admitted, "it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself".

"Although we may recognize the frailties of Christian dogma and deplore the unconscionable persecution of thought which is one of the less appetizing aspects of medieval history, we must also observe that in one of those strange permutations of which history yields occasional rare examples, it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself. Many things undoubtedly went into that amalgam: Greek logic and philosophy, the experimental methods of craftsmen in the arts as opposed to the aristocratic thinker-all these things have been debated. But perhaps the most curious element of them all is the factor dwelt upon by Whitehead-the sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds [Whitehead, A.N., "Science and the Modern World," Mentor, 1948, pp.4-15]. For, as Whitehead rightly observes, [Ibid., p.17] the philosophy of experimental science was not impressive. It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond men's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something-to the Christian conception of the nature of God [Ibid., p. 14]. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today-is sustained by that assumption." (Eiseley, L.C., 1958, "Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It," Anchor Books: Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1961, p.62).

:Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!

Re: I'm a bit confused about some of the things I've been reading in your blog

Steve

Thank you for your comment under my

[Right: Charles Hodge (1797-1878): Wikipedia. Hodge coined the term, "mediate, progressive creation" (see below), and therefore I acknowledge him as the founder of my General Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation.]

post "I am training to be a high school biology teacher, so less blogging!" Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Cook
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 9:07 PM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on I am training to be a high school biology teacher,....

>Stephen, >I hope your classes are going well. I'm also currently working on a biology degree with the intent to teach high school teacher. Putting aside all questions of sanity, I think the biology teachers I had in high school were the biggest influence in my becoming interested in science. Of course, what could be better than getting paid to talk about biology all day, no wonder they were so into their jobs.

Thanks. As updated on the above post, I have successfully completed my science teacher training and now am just awaiting the formal advice to that effect. And I agree about what could be better than getting paid to talk about biology all day. However, I will probably only relief teach part-time.

>I'm a bit confused about some of the things I've been reading in your blog and I was hoping you could shed some light, or at least direct me to where I can find answers.

You do not say which of my posts you were reading. But I presume that one of them is my, "What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design."

>There are a couple of instances where I've read that you do not agree with evolution but only decent with modification. So, all organisms are genetically and ancestrally related and have become that way by natural and supernatural means.

As a Christian, I don't agree with "evolution" in the "standard scientific theory" sense "that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'":

"... perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February. My emphasis).

That is, I do not agree with fully Naturalistic (i.e. Atheistic Evolution). I do however agree with "decent with modification" and indeed with Universal Common Descent that "all organisms share a common ancestor":

"Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," pp.5-6).

They are not the same thing. As both Darwin and Dawkins admitted, God could have supernaturally intervened at links in the chains of common descent, in which case it would not be "evolution at all" (my emphasis):

"Darwin ... wrote ... I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' ... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.248-249)

but a form of "divine creation" (my emphasis):

"... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317).

And note that Darwin and Dawkins say it would not be "evolution," not that it would not be "descent with modification."

>I'm curious as to what natural means are in PMC. I've seen that you have made arguments against natural selection being a method of speciation, however, genetic drift is also a mechanism of evolution.

"Natural" in PMC (my General Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation) means all the proven natural mechanisms of biological change, including natural selection and genetic drift.

But you beg the question by claiming that they are mechanisms of evolution, when as Dawkins and Darwin pointed out above, if God supernaturally intervened in common descent, then it would not be evolution at all but a form of divine creation. And that supernatural intervention by God in chains of common descent, to "inject ... new genetic material," is "perfectly possible for theists" who "reject that [fully naturalistic] theory of evolution":

"It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch, D.L., 1996, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.187-188).

>Genetic drift is something that scientists have observed in many populations of species including humans (CCR5 and blood type in native americans).

I have no problem with genetic drift, or indeed any proven mechanism of biological change (see above). But that there are natural mechanisms of biological change does not preclude God also supernaturally intervening at strategic points in life's history, as Progressive Creation (including Progressive Mediate Creation) maintains:

"Progressive creationism accepts much of the scientific picture of the development of the universe, assuming that for the most part it developed according to natural laws. However, especially with regard to life on earth, PCs hold that God intervened supernaturally at strategic points along the way. On their view, Creation was not a single six-day event but occurred in stages over millions of years. ... The PC view tends to overlap with other views, particularly with old-earth creationism." (Pennock, R.T., 1999, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Fourth Printing, pp.26- 27. Emphasis original).

>I'm guessing that supernatural changes would be whole genes/genomes appearing ex nihilo to account for irreducible complexity.

Not ex nihilo in PMC but ex materia, i.e. from pre-existing material. The Mediate in Progressive Mediate Creation means that the changes were mediate, in the sense of the opposite of immediate ( i.e. immediate with no intervening secondary causes or materials and were therefore ex nihilo). The leading 19th century theologian Charles Hodge (see above) contrasted "Immediate Creation ... which ... was instantaneous and immediate, i. e. without the intervention of any second causes" with "Mediate ... Creation ...gradual ...:forming out of preexisting material ... the power of God working in union with second causes."

"Mediate and Immediate Creation. But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation was instantaneous and immediate, i. e., without the intervention of any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted that this is to be understood only of the original call of matter into existence. Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first and second, or immediate and mediate creation. The one was instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any preexisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and implies both. There is evident ground for this distinction in the Mosaic account of the creation. ... It thus appears that forming out of preexisting material comes within the Scriptural idea of creating. ... There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, Vol. I, 1960, reprint, pp.556-557. Emphasis original)

Mediate creation is in fact the pattern in Genesis 1, after the original creation of raw material in Genesis 1:1. "`Let the earth bring forth living creatures ` (Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation":

"But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method of man's creation. Whether man's physical system is or is not derived, by natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not inform us. As the command `Let the earth bring forth living creatures' (Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation, so the forming of man `of the dust of the ground' (Gen. 2:7) does not in itself determine whether the creation of man's body was mediate or immediate." (Strong, A.H., 1907, "Systematic Theology," p.465).

"... after Genesis 1:1 the narrator deals with a mediate creation, which involves the actualizing of potentialities latent in the original creation":

"Perhaps we are not to rule out dogmatically the possibility that the dust of man's origin may have been animated, since the animals before man appear to have been fashioned from the earth (Gen. 1:24). The Bible does not explicate man's physical origin in detail. The fact that, after Genesis 1:1 the narrator deals with a mediate creation, which involves the actualizing of potentialities latent in the original creation, should caution us against the one-sided invocation of divine transcendence. The new levels of being arise with quite obvious dependence on the lower in the creation account." (Henry, C.F.H., 1957, "Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1968, p.282).

"By mediate creation Warfield meant that God acted, or intervened, with already existing material to bring something new into existence":

"Warfield's third category was ... mediate creation-in effect, a via media between evolution and creation ex nihilo .... By mediate creation Warfield meant that God acted, or intervened, with already existing material to bring something new into existence that could not have developed from the forces latent in the material itself. Like creation ex nihilo, mediate creation required a direct act of God. Like evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material." (Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., 2000, "B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture," pp.34-35).

"... God ... in the beginning brought forth the whole visible and invisible universe, without the use of preexistent material ... this ... applies only to what is generally known as primary or immediate creation ... in Gen. 1:1. But the Bible clearly uses the word `create' also in cases in which God did make use of preexisting materials ... through secondary causes":

"Creation in the strict sense of the word may be defined as that free act of God whereby He, according to His sovereign will and for His own glory, in the beginning brought forth the whole visible and invisible universe, without the use of preexistent material ... this definition applies only to what is generally known as primary or immediate creation, that is, the creation described in Gen. 1:1. But the Bible clearly uses the word `create' also in cases in which God did make use of preexisting materials, as in the creation of sun, moon, and stars, of the animals and of man. ... creative work, in which God works through secondary causes, Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:7,8; Jer. 31:22; Amos 4:13, and produces results which only He could produce." (Berkhof, L., 1949, "Systematic Theology," pp.128-129).

>It sounds like you've had all the same arguments about IC already so I'm curious as to why you still accept IC? Behe's examples do have components that work independent of the whole.

I am not sure what are these "all the same arguments about IC" (Irreducible Complexity) that would make you curious as to why I still accept IC. My definition of IC is "any complex organ .... which could not"PLAUSIBLY "have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications":

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin, C., 1872, "Origin of Species", 6th ed., New York University Press: New York, 1988, p.154]. ... What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly ... by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit ... for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.39. Emphasis original).

since Darwin was being deliberately dishonest, and unscientific, in protecting his theory from falsification, by demanding that critics of his theory had to show the impossible, "a complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications."

And the ultimate complex organ is the first living cell (i.e. the origin of life) which even Dawkins tacitly admits was irreducibly complex in that "it could not" PLAUSIBLY "have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications" (in effect). That is because, as Dawkins states, "Cumulative selection ... had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself" but "the ... machinery of replication ... seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection":

"Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself. ... The replication processes that we know seem to need complicated machinery to work ... But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem. ... cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection! Some people see this as a fundamental flaw in the whole theory of the blind watchmaker. ... the ultimate proof that there must originally have been a designer, ... a far-sighted supernatural watchmaker." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker," pp.140-141. Emphasis original).

>Finally, consider the consequences of a God who is all knowing, all powerful, and beyond human comprehension in any respect.

Agreed that while God can be known by man, He cannot be comprehended (i.e. fully known) by man:

Job 5:9. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. Job 11:7. "Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? Job 26:14. And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?" Ecc 8:17. then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it. Isa 55:8-9. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Rom 11:33. Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 1Cor 13:12. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

.>If this being created the universe, wouldn't you expect the laws that he designs to govern it would be so complex that no human could understand them all on an intuitive level?

I am not sure what you mean by "no human could understand them all on an intuitive level." The laws of physics are simple and can typically be expressed in a brief mathematical formula, e.g. E=mc^2, F=ma, etc. It is perhaps the ultimate design argument that our minds are fitted to understand the underlying laws of nature:

"Another of Einstein's famous remarks is that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. The success of the scientific enterprise can often blind us to the astonishing fact that science works. ... it is both incredibly fortunate and deeply mysterious that we are able to fathom the workings of nature by use of the scientific method. .... Why has the human mind the capacity to `unlock the secrets of nature' ... It is easy to imagine worlds in which the regularities of nature are ... impenetrably complicated ... requiring far more brainpower than humans possess to decode them. In fact, the cosmic code seems almost attuned to human capabilities. This is all the more mysterious on account of the fact that human intellectual powers are presumably determined by biological evolution, and have absolutely no connection with doing science." (Davies, P.C.W., 1994, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science," p.54).

>Quantum-mechanics would be a pretty good example of laws completely incomprehensible intuitively to humans.

Again, physicists understand the laws of Quantum Mechanics (along with the other laws of physics), in that they can discover, formulate and apply them, but they cannot fully comprehend those laws in the sense of being able to explain why they exist, where they come from, and why they are their particular value and not any other.

>And this being has already seen everything in the universe happen already .

Agreed that God "has already seen everything in the universe happen already," i.e. that is going to happen in time. But I am not sure about "in every permutation possible."

>At the point of creation he already knew not only everything going on on this planet, but every other planet, star, cloud of dark matter or dark energy, all at once.

Agreed.

>He would have made living things have DNA and made that DNA mutate causing variations in populations.

Agreed. But that does not mean that God made DNA with the power to randomly mutate such that those mutations could be naturally selected to originate life's complex designs.

>It would be how he designed those variations to change when selective pressures were applied to them etc etc.

Agreed, but within the limits observed in nature. It is a leap of Darwinian faith, based on there being "no mechanism ... known ... that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random":

"It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. .... It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, 1986, p.312).

but that assumes that there is no God who could have supernaturally intervened to "guide mutation in directions that are non-random."

>He designed the universe around each human and it is such a perfect design that every event, from the beginning till now, happened exactly the way he expected it to.

There is ambiguity in your "expected it to" such that, together with "a perfect design" makes it sounds like God approved "every event, including every sin, which are events. And that Jesus commanded us to pray that the Father's will be done on earth as it is in heaven :

Mt 6:9-10. "This, then, is how you should pray: `'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'"

show that His perfect will is not yet being done on earth.

>Doesn't this sound like a god thats described with all powerful, all knowing, etc?

It is interesting (and perhaps significant) that as you get to the conclusion of your argument for "evolution and natural selection" (see below) you start dropping the capital "G" in God.

>So, why demand evidence for god's design in the universe when the whole universe, including evolution and natural selection, is evidence of his design?

There are different levels of design, as leading ID theorist Bill Dembski explains, using the analogy of painting on a canvas:

"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on whether the universe as a whole is designed but on whether we are able to detect design within an already given universe. ... Although one can ask whether that causal backdrop is itself designed, one can as well ask whether events and objects occurring within that backdrop are designed. At issue here are two types of design: (1) the design of the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within the universe. An analogy illustrates the difference. .... An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can therefore ask whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can ask whether some configuration of paint on the canvas is designed. The design of the canvas corresponds to the design of the universe as a whole. The design of some configuration of paint corresponds to an instance of design within the universe." (Dembski, W.A. , 1999, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," pp.13-14).

A better analogy would be ancient rock art.The rock is designed at one level, but the design engraved on the rock by an intelligent human designer is designed at a different, higher level.

And to talk of "evolution" being designed is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. As pointed out above, "evolution" in the "standard scientific theory" sense is that "God (including an Intelligent Designer) had no part in this process."

However, if there is a God then Naturalism (nature is all there is) is false and so Naturalistic Evolution would have no philosophical support. Moreover, there would be something (namely supernatural intervention by God) "that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random" so the central assumption in Darwinism would be false also.

>I hope that sounded somewhat profound. I hope that it was an argument that you have not heard yet and start inching a little closer to the TE side.

I debated against all comers (including leading TEs) in the Calvin Evolution Reflector and later on my own Yahoo group for over a decade (1994-2005) and I have heard and debated that argument many tines.

The problem with TE (Theistic Evolution) is that in my experience its proponents always end up arguing for Naturalistic (i.e. Atheistic) Evolution!

>Evolution does not demand atheism at all but it is observable in every aspect of biology.

Naturalistic evolution (including Darwinian evolution), which is the only acceptable evolution in science, does assume Atheism by its claim that there was nothing available "that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random."

Darwin admitted to the Christian botanist Asa Gray that he wrote "atheistically" in his Origin of Species:

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860, in Darwin, F., ed., 1898], "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," p.105).

And what's more Darwin was lying in his claim that he "had no intention to write atheistically." Darwin's notebooks published after his death showed that he was an uncompromising philosophical materialist:

"The notebooks prove that Darwin was interested in philosophy and aware of its implications. He knew that the primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism. Other evolutionists spoke of vital forces, directed history, organic striving, and the essential irreducibilty of mind-a panoply of concepts that traditional Christianity could accept in compromise, for they permitted a Christian God to work by evolution instead of creation. Darwin spoke only of random variation and natural selection. In the notebooks Darwin resolutely applied his materialistic theory of evolution to all phenomena of life, including what he termed `the citadel itself' - the human mind. And if mind has no real existence beyond the brain, can God be anything more than an illusion invented by an illusion? In one of his transmutation notebooks, he wrote: `Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!...' [Darwin, C.R., "C Notebook," February 1838, p.166]" (Gould, S.J. , 1978, "Darwin's Delay," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991, pp.24-25. Ellipses Gould's).

>It would be a shame for a fellow biologist to miss the elegance in a system that describes so well the greatness of god.

What am I missing out on? I accept that the proven natural mechanisms of biological change over time testify to the greatness of God (capital "G").

You may not realise it but your claim, or implication, that a god who works only through evolution (i.e. natural processes) is greater than a God who also supernaturally intervenes in His creation (as the Biblical God does), is a form of Gnostic thinking:

"Gnosticism is an ancient belief system that draws a strong distinction between spirit and matter. .... In Darwin's time the world was increasingly seen as controlled by natural laws. God may have instituted these laws in the beginning, but he had not since interfered; the laws were now his secondary causes .... This view seemed to have a divine sanction; after all, to control the world exclusively through natural laws-God's secondary causes-required an even greater God... In 1794 Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote this Gnostic-sounding statement of how natural history should be viewed: `The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect! The Cause of Causes! Parent of Parents! Ens Entium! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves.' [Darwin E., "Zoonomia," J. Johnson: London: 1794, Vol. 1, p.509]" (Hunter, C.G., 2001, "Darwin's God," p.129).

Sorry Steve but your little "g" god who is limited by the dictates of Naturalistic philosophy, such that he would not have supernaturally intervened at strategic points in his own creation, is too small a god for me. I believed in that little "g" god over 40 years ago when I was a Deist on my journey from Atheism to Christianity. The Christian capital "G" God of the Bible whom I believe in is not limited by any philosophy of men, let alone an Atheistic philosophy like Naturalism.

>--Steve Cook

It is ironic that former atheist Antony Flew, who now believes in a God who supernaturally intervened to create the first living cell:

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God ... based on scientific evidence .... At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said .... Yet biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, `Has Science Discovered God?' .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote. ...Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American `intelligent design' theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe." (Ostling, R.N., 2004, "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience, 10 December).

although not a Christian, is more theistic than most of the Christian Theistic Evolutionists I have debated, because most of them denied that God supernaturally intervened in His creation, even to originate life!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism-natural selection working on variation-might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, pp.5-6).

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin, C., 1872, "Origin of Species", 6th ed., New York University Press: New York, 1988, p.154]. It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mivart's concern over the incipient stages of new structures to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe, 2006, p.39. Emphasis original).

"It should be noted that Scripture does not always use the Hebrew word bara' and the Greek term ktizein in that absolute sense. It also employs these terms to denote a secondary creation, in which God made use of material that was already in existence but could not of itself have produced the result indicated, Gen. 1:21,27; 5:1; Isa. 6:7,12; 54:16; Amos 4:13; I Cor. 11:9; Rev. 10:6. It even uses them to designate that which comes into existence under the providential guidance of God, Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:7,8; 65:18; I Tim. 4:4. two other terms are used synonymously with the term `to create,' namely, `to make' (Heb., 'asah; Greek, poiein) and `to form' (Heb. yatsar; Greek, plasso). The former is clearly used in all the three senses indicated in the preceding: of primary creation in Gen. 2:4; Prov. 16:4; Acts 17:24; more frequently of secondary creation, Gen. 1:7,16,26; 2:22; Ps. 89:47; and of the work of providence in Ps. 74:17. The latter is used similarly of primary creation, Ps. 90:2 (perhaps the only instance of this use); of secondary creation, Gen. 2:7,19; Ps. 104:26; Amos 4:13; Zech. 12:1; and of the work of providence, Deut. 32:18; Isa. 43:1,7,21; 45:7. All three words are found together in Isa. 45:7. Creation in the strict sense of the word may be defined as that free act of God whereby He, according to His sovereign will and for His own glory, in the beginning brought forth the whole visible and invisible universe, without the use of preexistent material and thus gave it an existence, distinct from His own and yet always dependent on Him. In view of the Scriptural data indicated in the preceding, it is quite evident, however, that this definition applies only to what is generally known as primary or immediate creation, that is, the creation described in Gen. 1:1. But the Bible clearly uses the word `create' also in cases in which God did make use of preexisting materials, as in the creation of sun, moon, and stars, of the animals and of man. ... cases, also designated in Scripture as creative work, in which God works through secondary causes, Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:7,8; Jer. 31:22; Amos 4:13, and produces results which only He could produce." (Berkhof, L., 1949, "Systematic Theology," Banner of Truth: London, 1966, Reprinted, pp.128-129).

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws; with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, p.105).

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science. Another of Einstein's famous remarks is that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. The success of the scientific enterprise can often blind us to the astonishing fact that science works. Though it is usually taken for granted, it is both incredibly fortunate and deeply mysterious that we are able to fathom the workings of nature by use of the scientific method. The purpose of science is to uncover patterns and regularities in nature, but the raw data of observation rarely exhibit explicit regularities. Nature's order is hidden from us: the book of nature is written in a sort of code. To make progress in science we need to crack the cosmic code, to dig beneath the raw data, and uncover the hidden order. To return to the crossword analogy, the clues are highly cryptic, and require some considerable ingenuity to solve. What is so remarkable is that human beings can actually perform this code-breaking operation. Why has the human mind the capacity to `unlock the secrets of nature' and make a reasonable success at completing nature's cryptic crossword"? It is easy to imagine worlds in which the regularities of nature are transparent at a glance or impenetrably complicated or subtle, requiring far more brainpower than humans possess to decode them. In fact, the cosmic code seems almost attuned to human capabilities. This is all the more mysterious on account of the fact that human intellectual powers are presumably determined by biological evolution, and have absolutely no connection with doing science. Our brains have evolved to cope with survival in the jungle," a far cry from describing the laws of electromagnetism or the structure of the atom." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science," in Templeton, J.M., ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator," Continuum: New York NY, 1994, p.54).

"Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself. And that vital first step was a difficult one because, at its heart, there lies what seems to be a paradox. The replication processes that we know seem to need complicated machinery to work ... The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem. Certainly the modern cellular machinery, the apparatus of DNA replication and protein synthesis, has all the hallmarks of a highly evolved, specially fashioned machine. .... At its own level of ultra-miniaturization, it is of the same order of elaborateness and complexity of design as the human eye .... an apparatus as complex as the human eye could not possibly come into existence through single-step selection. Unfortunately, the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself .... So, cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step selection cannot. But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection! Some people see this as a fundamental flaw in the whole theory of the blind watchmaker. They see it as the ultimate proof that there must originally have been a designer, not a blind watchmaker but a far-sighted supernatural watchmaker." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.140-141. Emphasis original).

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non- miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins., 1986, p.248-249).

"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom. We can imagine (just) a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. But although we can imagine it, nobody has ever come close to suggesting any means by which this bias could come about. It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non- random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, 1986, p.312. Emphasis original).

"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317a).

"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on whether the universe as a whole is designed but on whether we are able to detect design within an already given universe. The universe provides a well-defined causal backdrop (physicists these days think of it as a field characterized by field equations). Although one can ask whether that causal backdrop is itself designed, one can as well ask whether events and objects occurring within that backdrop are designed. At issue here are two types of design: (1) the design of the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within the universe. An analogy illustrates the difference. Consider an oil painting. An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can therefore ask whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can ask whether some configuration of paint on the canvas is designed. The design of the canvas corresponds to the design of the universe as a whole. The design of some configuration of paint corresponds to an instance of design within the universe. Though not perfect, this analogy is useful. The universe is a canvas on which is depicted natural history. One can ask whether that canvas itself is designed. On the other hand, one can ask whether features of natural history depicted on that canvas are designed. In biology, for instance, one can ask whether Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical machines are designed. Although design remains an important issue in cosmology, the focus of the intelligent design movement is on biology. That's where the action is. It was Darwin's expulsion of design from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in Western culture. So, too, it will be intelligent design's reinstatement of design within biology that will be the undoing of naturalism in Western culture." (Dembski, W.A. , 1999, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.13-14).

"Gnosticism is an ancient belief system that draws a strong distinction between spirit and matter. Spirit is good and matter is evil. Whereas the Bible says that God made the world, Gnosticism holds that God is separate from the world, thus Gnosticism is a theodicy. Yes, there is evil, but it is far from God. God is separate and distinct from the world and not responsible for its evils. In Darwin's time the world was increasingly seen as controlled by natural laws. God may have instituted these laws in the beginning, but he had not since interfered; the laws were now his secondary causes. As in Gnosticism, God was seen as separate from the world. Since God was separate from the world, natural phenomena were not interpreted as results of divine providence. This view seemed to have a divine sanction; after all, to control the world exclusively through natural laws-God's secondary causes-required an even greater God. In other words, a clean separation of God and creation made for an even purer God, just as the Gnostics had found that spirit could be good when it was opposed to matter. In 1794 Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote this Gnostic-sounding statement of how natural history should be viewed: `The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect! The Cause of Causes! Parent of Parents! Ens Entium! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves.' [Darwin E., "Zoonomia," J. Johnson: London: 1794, Vol. 1, p.509]" (Hunter, C.G., 2001, "Darwin's God Evolution and the Problem of Evil," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, p.129).

"Pfleiderer's conclusions prompted Warfield to insist that `when we say 'evolution,' we definitely deny creation. and when we say 'creation,' we definitely deny evolution. Whatever comes by the one process by that very fact does not come by the other. Whatever comes by evolution is not created; whatever is created is not evolved.' Evolution and creation were mutually exclusive categories. ... This 1901 essay was Warfield's most articulate presentation yet of a crucial distinction he was drawing between three modes of divine action or superintendence of the physical world. Warfield saw them as methods that God used to generate physical forms, species, and individuals. First was theistic evolution, or the providentially controlled unfolding of nature. Second was creation ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Warfield's third category was the most complicated and the one that least resembles schemes developed since his time. This was the category of mediate creation-in effect, a via media between evolution and creation ex nihilo that he developed from hints in earlier Reformed theologians. By mediate creation Warfield meant that God acted, or intervened, with already existing material to bring something new into existence that could not have developed from the forces latent in the material itself. Like creation ex nihilo, mediate creation required a direct act of God. Like evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material." (Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., eds, 2000, "B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture: Selected Writings," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.34-35).

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God --more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. ...,' he said. `It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.' ... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, `Has Science Discovered God?' .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote. ... if his belief upsets people, well `that's too bad,' Flew said. `My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.' ... Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American `intelligent design' theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life." (Ostling, R.N., 2004, "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December).

"In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that `the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.' Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February. My emphasis).

"But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method of man's creation. Whether man's physical system is or is not derived, by natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not inform us. As the command `Let the earth bring forth living creatures ` (Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation, so the forming of man `of the dust of the ground' (Gen. 2:7) does not in itself determine whether the creation of man's body was mediate or immediate. We may believe that man sustained to the highest preceding brute the same relation which the multiplied bread and fish sustained to the five loaves and two fishes (Mat. 14:19), or which the wine sustained to the water which was transformed at Cana (John 2:7-10), or which the multiplied oil sustained to the original oil in the O.T. miracle (2 K. 4:1-7) The `dust,' before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust." (Strong, A.H., 1907, "Systematic Theology," Judson Press: Valley Forge PA, Reprinted, 1967, p.465).