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,
"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).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.