Darwin Day by Tom Neven on 02/12/2008 at 3:14 PM

Today's a holiday, although I suspect a lot of you, like me, didn't get the day off. But it's Darwin Day, the 199th birthday of the naturalist who gave us The Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, and the theory generally known as Darwinian evolution. A lot of people are making a big deal of it and will make a bigger deal next year, the 200th anniversary. (Why, by the way, do we have such a fondness for round numbers—evolutionarily speaking, that is?)

This blog will not deal with the arguments for or against Darwinian evolution, Neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Hopeful Monsters, Intelligent Design or creationism. There are plenty of other people doing that already.

I want to deal with a blind spot that the theory's proponents gloss over or flat out refuse to deal with: their reliance on just-so stories to explain their theory. The just-so story is a variation on the ad hoc fallacy. It takes what is and creates a fantastical story to explain it. Rudyard Kipling had great fun with this in his just-so stories such as How the Leopard Got His Spots or How the Camel Got His Hump.

For example, a difficulty Darwin had to explain was altruism, the human tendency to care for the weak and infirm, to help others even when doing so might hurt ourselves. It's hard to square altruism with his theory that we all seek to maximize the survivability of our line, even if at the expense of others.  Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man:

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that [altruistic behavior toward the weak and infirm] must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race [of animals]; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Darwin is talking about the great lengths we go to care for the weak and infirm, even allowing them to marry and reproduce. He explains it away as something "acquired as part of the social instincts." (He also seems to think it's a bad idea.) His evidence? None. But this is precisely what so-called evolutionary psychology does today. They look at something that is -- say, the existence of certain sexual behaviors -- and come up with fantastical explanations for it. Every psychological behavior is explained as a possible evolutionary adaptation of some sort without actually showing that is an evolutionary adaptation.

These theories all share one thing in common: zero empirical evidence and no testable hypothesis. Another key aspect of science, falsifiability, is absent, too. They're pure speculation, yet they have a peer-reviewed journal and possess all the language of science without the actual science -- beyond the everyday psychological insights, that is. Yet the press gullibly laps them up as if they are actual science, such as here. Think about this key sentence from the cited study: "At the moment of the kiss, there's a very complicated exchange of information  ...  that may tap into underlying evolved mechanisms."

May!? Or maybe not. The study provides no real way to determine which is true. It starts with an assumption -- evolutionary theory is true -- and shoehorns the evidence to fit that, precisely what Kipling did with his stories. The difference is, Kipling was joking.

In the next installment, I’ll discuss the implications of a purely Darwinian worldview and its consequence on moral reasoning.

Darwin Day by Tom Neven on 02/12/2008 at 3:14 PM

Today's a holiday, although I suspect a lot of you, like me, didn't get the day off. But it's Darwin Day, the 199th birthday of the naturalist who gave us The Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, and the theory generally known as Darwinian evolution. A lot of people are making a big deal of it and will make a bigger deal next year, the 200th anniversary. (Why, by the way, do we have such a fondness for round numbers—evolutionarily speaking, that is?)

This blog will not deal with the arguments for or against Darwinian evolution, Neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Hopeful Monsters, Intelligent Design or creationism. There are plenty of other people doing that already.

I want to deal with a blind spot that the theory's proponents gloss over or flat out refuse to deal with: their reliance on just-so stories to explain their theory. The just-so story is a variation on the ad hoc fallacy. It takes what is and creates a fantastical story to explain it. Rudyard Kipling had great fun with this in his just-so stories such as How the Leopard Got His Spots or How the Camel Got His Hump.

For example, a difficulty Darwin had to explain was altruism, the human tendency to care for the weak and infirm, to help others even when doing so might hurt ourselves. It's hard to square altruism with his theory that we all seek to maximize the survivability of our line, even if at the expense of others.  Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man:

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that [altruistic behavior toward the weak and infirm] must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race [of animals]; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Darwin is talking about the great lengths we go to care for the weak and infirm, even allowing them to marry and reproduce. He explains it away as something "acquired as part of the social instincts." (He also seems to think it's a bad idea.) His evidence? None. But this is precisely what so-called evolutionary psychology does today. They look at something that is -- say, the existence of certain sexual behaviors -- and come up with fantastical explanations for it. Every psychological behavior is explained as a possible evolutionary adaptation of some sort without actually showing that is an evolutionary adaptation.

These theories all share one thing in common: zero empirical evidence and no testable hypothesis. Another key aspect of science, falsifiability, is absent, too. They're pure speculation, yet they have a peer-reviewed journal and possess all the language of science without the actual science -- beyond the everyday psychological insights, that is. Yet the press gullibly laps them up as if they are actual science, such as here. Think about this key sentence from the cited study: "At the moment of the kiss, there's a very complicated exchange of information  ...  that may tap into underlying evolved mechanisms."

May!? Or maybe not. The study provides no real way to determine which is true. It starts with an assumption -- evolutionary theory is true -- and shoehorns the evidence to fit that, precisely what Kipling did with his stories. The difference is, Kipling was joking.

In the next installment, I’ll discuss the implications of a purely Darwinian worldview and its consequence on moral reasoning.

Comments

[1. Jo said the following at 3:38 PM on Feb 12:]

1

I always think the general consensus that there is evil in the world is evidence not against God but for him. Evolution sure doesn't explain why we have this lofty concept of objective morality.

On a side note, it's terrible, but until I saw this post I genuinely hadn't realised that Darwin was on our ten pound note.

[2. Louise said the following at 3:38 PM on Feb 12:]

2

Here's an odd fact for everyone...Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same date, Feb. 12, 1809.

Today is a state holiday here in IL.

[3. JB said the following at 3:41 PM on Feb 12:]

3

Actually, Richard Dawkins (yes, that Richard Dawkins) wrote a whole book explaining altruism as an epiphenomenon in The Selfish Gene. It's a pretty cogent argument. Basically, he says that altruism is explainable because members of a kin group share a large number of genes and efforts to support the survival of members of your kin group actually enhances the survival potential of your genes. So behavior that is "selfish" on the molecular level looks "altruistic" at the organism level. Kind of cool.

I agree with you, though, that evolutionary psychology is weak (at best) science. However, if there is independent evidence for evolution(and there is), then I don't see what's wrong with attempting to fit human behavior into that model. There are at least some areas where you can link psychology to biology - say the imprinting of mothers on children due to oxytocin immediately after childbirth - and you can in turn trace the biology along evolutionary pathways.

[4. Sara said the following at 3:41 PM on Feb 12:]

4

Tom, if scientists thought they had a perfect theory of evolution, they wouldn't still be working on it! Why not just follow the investigation instead of stopping abruptly and (if I'm reading the subtext right) considering it another reason to feel more confident about creationism--which has problems of its own that you could just as easily have written about.

[5. Tom Neven said the following at 3:58 PM on Feb 12:]

5

JB

I've read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, and strictly from a logical standpoint they're less than convincing. They are, in short, very long just-so stories. Dawkins simply assumes the thing he sets out to prove.

Sara

I never said anyone should stop any sort of research. I just want people to see some of the critical-thinking errors behind a lot of so-called "science."

[6. Peter Wells said the following at 4:15 PM on Feb 12:]

6

Maybe you'd like to provide us with an alternative scientific viewpoint to evolution then, Tom?

Of course, a lot of people try and claim Intelligent Design is a science, but the thing is with a scientific theory, you take the evidence and come up with a solution, instead of taking the solution (God) and then trying to find evidence to justify Him.

I don't think the theory of evolution poses any threat to God, but I don't think it's totally wrong, either. Eventually they'll find something that points to God, if God made us, right?

And 'just-so' stories? How would they be any different from a scientist's point of view from Genesis? Isn't that just one big 'just-so' story? And more often that not, you'll find that if one scientist doesn't know the real answer, another one will.

[7. JB said the following at 4:22 PM on Feb 12:]

7

Tom,

I don't know that Dawkin's project is to give independent evidence for evolution. He's just trying to explicate the model and show how it can account for behavioral features. What is a scientific theory except an attempt to fit a model to observed evidence? Just-so stories aren't science because you can't make verifiable predictions from them. Dawkins can make a prediction - namely that in nature examples of altruism can be found to increase the survival value of genes being carried by the altruistic organism. Thus, one would see more altruism the closer the genetic association (say, within immediate families) and much less altruism the farther the genetic association (say, cross-species altruism). I think the evidence bears that out. Am I misunderstanding your critique?

[8. Morgan said the following at 4:37 PM on Feb 12:]

8

Ouch! I think that was a little harsh. While I agree that a lot of evolutionary psychology is speculative, and it obviously is not testable, the statement "It's hard to square altruism with his theory that we all seek to maximize the survivability of our line, even if at the expense of others" just is not true. It's simple logic that if you have an altruistic gene and that causes you to help people who are related to you that that gene will be passed on. For instance, if you were to sacrifice yourself and save four siblings, your genes would be passed on twice as well as if you saved yourself (you are 1/2 related to your siblings). This means that the altruism gene would be passed on.

[9. Catherine said the following at 4:39 PM on Feb 12:]

9

Peter, the basis of evolution is that all these changes came along by chance. The point of intelligent design is that there is no "chance" directing evolution, but that God is the One directing the changes, and if you research the evidence, it makes more sense that the changes are God-driven, not by accident (like the Cambrian explosion). It isn't trying to make God fit the evidence - it's looking at the evidence and realizing that it only makes sense if Something is directing evolution.

[10. Sara said the following at 4:42 PM on Feb 12:]

10

Tom,
it isn't just a matter of having arguments that are free from logical errors, it's about developing a model in biology that is best able to account for and predict the ways in which present-day populations are changing, too. Of course you can't empirically test matters of history.

[11. Sara said the following at 4:50 PM on Feb 12:]

11

"Amid the quibbling, it may be pleasantly nostalgic, if not instructive, to recall Darwin sailing on the Beagle"

That's my favourite quote about evolution from the ever-gentle Robert Coles... soothing, and also kind of sad.

[12. Josh said the following at 4:54 PM on Feb 12:]

12

Series of ill-advised Boundless posts about science in 3...2...1...

How is the Creation story *not* a "just so story"?

[13. farmer Tom said the following at 5:00 PM on Feb 12:]

13

Well, boys and girls, it is not logical to start a discussion of St. Darwin, unless we include the entire title of his quintessential
book.

On the Origin of Species

by Means of Natural Selection

all you'll who think Darwin was right, buy into his lies, think that you can tie the Bible and St. Darwin together have a problem,

because you fail to include the rest of the title, the part that points to the evil, wicked and godless nature of Darwinian Evolution. Here it is, can you stand to even read the words, they are filled with hate, condescension and utter contempt for God's created order.

or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,

That's right, Darwin was a racist, a hater of men and women with extra pigment, believed in the superiority of the favoured races, that would be the white race. And some of you want to accept his ideas as valid. Shame on you. Christ taught no such thing. We are all equal at the foot of the cross. There is no respecter of persons with God.

Why not worship the God of the Bible and leave Darwin in the dust bin of history, with all the other racists and xenophobes like Hitler and Margret Sanger?

Read it again, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

[14. Ted Slater said the following at 5:02 PM on Feb 12:]

14

I've blogged before that Scripture is not compatible with the theory of evolution: "Jesus Was Not A Theistic Evolutionist."

Before you dismiss my article and tell me that you think that God used evolution to bring "all this" about, please wrestle with what I wrote there. Those interested in seeing what some creation scientists think, and what I've come to believe about the history of the earth, please see the footnote in my blog post.

FWIW, I'm surprised by all the Boundless Line readers who hold such a low view of Scripture, going so far to call it mere fable. We're either doing our job well by drawing you here, or doing our job poorly that you'd think so lowly of the Bible.

[15. Sara said the following at 5:14 PM on Feb 12:]

15

Ted, I'd say it's the first. As mentioned in the censorship thread, this is a very well-run blog.

Zillions of Christians hold what you call a 'lowly' view of scripture. Check out Canada's church, the United Church of Canada; and liberal Anglicans, and some Quakers, and on and on... Instead of 'lowly', they'd probably call it 'accurate', just as you call your view of the Bible accurate.

Don't say 'fable', say, 'human product of an important tradition'.

[16. farmer Tom said the following at 5:31 PM on Feb 12:]

16

FWIW, I'm surprised by all the Boundless Line readers who hold such a low view of Scripture, going so far to call it mere fable. We're either doing our job well by drawing you here, or doing our job poorly that you'd think so lowly of the Bible.

Don't be surprised. In dealing with other "christian" websites and sites where many claim the name of Christ, I am absolutely appalled at the lack of faith in the Infallibility and Inspiration of Scripture.
There are many, many posting here who have no logical basis for claiming the free gift of Salvation because at every turn they undermine, ignore or out right reject the clear teaching of the Word of God.

If God did not create the world, if Adam did not sin in the garden, and if Scripture is so unreliable that it can not be trusted, then they have no right to claim a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, since the very document which explains and shows His work of redemption is invalid for use as a source of information.

Maybe a reminder from God's Word is in order, simply claiming the name of (Christ one)Christian is not enough.

Matthew 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

If your lifestyle, your behavior and your belief system is like the world, you have got devil fruit hanging from your branches and by the standard given by Christ here indicates that you may well hear, "Depart from me,"

If your worldview, your philosophy and your authority are at odds with the God of the Universe and the letter He wrote to mankind(The Bible) you need to do some reevaluation of your belief system.

[17. JB said the following at 5:33 PM on Feb 12:]

17

Farmer Tom,

I think you're misinterpreting the title of the Origin of Species. In context, "favoured races" is talking about successful variants of a species. So, a line of finches with a specialized beak that could gain access to a new food source would be a "favoured race" of finches. The phrase doesn't imply anything about specifically human ethnic-racial distinctions (which are more cultural than genetic, anyway).

That being said, I'm sure Darwin, like many other Englishmen of his day, held some views about human races with which I would disagree. That hardly matters - the man's views about race have nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. For comparison, Martin Luther was virulently anti-Semitic. I'm still a Protestant.

[18. JB said the following at 5:44 PM on Feb 12:]

18

Ted,

I don't see your warrant for saying that Jesus spoke of certain events as fact as opposed to metaphor. For example, when he referenced Jonah, he spoke of Jonah as a "sign." When he spoke of Noah, he spoke of the Flood as a metaphor for the coming of the Messiah (one can use real events as metaphors in speech, I think). If someone takes the Genesis account as a metaphor, I don't see that these passages from Jesus clarify the issue any. They can be taken equally well as metaphor and statements of fact.

On another issue, what do you think about the provisional use of evolutionary theory as a tool for understanding the world? That is, do you think that a person could believe that the creation account is literally true, but use an evolutionary model to make sense of things like the fossil record or genetic similarities between species? It would be kind of like the way engineers use Newtonian mechanics: they know it's not how the world *really* is, but it's a useful tool for getting a job done.

[19. Josh said the following at 5:48 PM on Feb 12:]

19

Farmer Tom, have you actually read the "Origin of the Species", or did you just read the title? It's an interesting method of literary theory, although I'm not sure it will get you very far.

If you read it, or if you've taken a 6th grade biology course, you'd know that the "races" of the title are essentially what we call "species" today. "Favoured" in the sense that they survive because of beneficial traits.

But that was a nice straw man you set up anyway. Bringing in Hitler to any discussion is a great way to set up that moral high ground!

[20. Jacob Douvier said the following at 5:58 PM on Feb 12:]

20

The point of intelligent design is that there is no "chance" directing evolution, but that God is the One directing the changes
This isn't strictly true if you're talking about ID as it's being promoted even by self-proclaimed evangelicals like William Dembski. ID, even according to Dembski, acknowledges that evolutionary chance and random natural selection account for 90% of everything, and that the "intervention" of an intelligent designer (be he a supernatural entity, time-traveling scientist or extra terrestrials) is only necessary to account for the left overs: irreducibly complex systems. Because of this, ID is not anywhere close to 6-day creationism. Ironically, most evolutionists don't seem to be able to grasp this simple taxonomical distinction. 6-day Creationism is hostile to any form of macro-evolution, and ID whole-heartedly embraces it as the way of things 90-95% of the time. So while, strictly speaking, Creationism is an intelligent design theory, Intelligent Design as is being promoted by people like Dembski, is not Creationism.

I won't go into it, but there are also serious problems with the scientific method, namely, that it really isn't unique to the natural sciences, and that it is not clear if there is any difference between scientific and other "kinds" of knowledge. I strongly recommend interested parties look into some philosophy of science like Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn points out that a scientific community's paradigm determines things like what are scientific problems and the proper means of solving it. You cannot apply contemporary definitions science and its methods to past innovations and still call those past advancements (done under a discarded paradigm) science, because past scientists were practicing their craft under a different conceptual understanding of reality. The definition of science has changed and there is nothing to indicate that it won't change again.

[21. Adam said the following at 6:33 PM on Feb 12:]

21

Hey Everyone!

To speak of evidence for evolution is to contradict yourself. Evolutionary theories cannot provide the preconditions for intellegability for evidence at all.

Richard Taylor has an interesting discussion on this. He says that we are to imagine that we are on a railroad going from London to Wales. During the trip, you see rocks arranged in a certain manner so that they appear to say "The British Railroad Welcomes you to Wales." Now, you would be justified in saying that someone arranged the rocks to say such a thing. However, you would also be justified in saying that the rocks simply rolled down the hill, and formed the letters by natural weathering, even though such an explaination is highly unlikely. However, the problem is that, on such an interpretation, you would not be justified in assuming that you have information you are entering Wales from the arrangement of the rocks.

In the same way, and evolutionist might wish to say that his organs such as his eyes evolved by naturalistic processes. However, here is an important question. How then does he knows that his senses function to give him information about the external world? In other words, if the evolutionist wants to say that evolution is true, before he can give evidence of it, he must tell us why it is that we can trust that our senses have evolved in such a way that they are giving us information about the external world. There is simply no way he can answer the question without using his senses, and thus, begging the question.

Not only that, but evolution is based entirely in the concept of natural law. Natural law is based on the idea that nature has certain uniformity, such that we can expect that future actions will be like past actions. For instance, we assume that, given only a different time and place, salt will dissolve in water tomorrow just as it has today. However, what is the rational basis for accepting this regularity if you are going to be an evolutionist?

Two answers are usually given. First, some will say that we cannot know, but we can only know that very probably the future will be like the past. However, that is totally inadequate. For instance, what we are saying is that, in the past, the probablility of salt dissolving in water is 11/13. What we then have to say is that, in the future, the probability of salt dissolving in water is also 11/13. What is the problem with that? A probability judgement is necessarily a statement that the future will be like the past because we can expect uniform high probability from the past to the future. However, the whole question was "how do we know that the future is like the past?"

Indeed, for the Christian, each of these problems has simple, sunday school child answers. God has created our "eyes to see," and he has promised that "Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease." Thus, because God has created our eyes, they have purpose, and, because God has promised that he will keep nature uniform, we can trust in his promises.

How is the Creation story *not* a "just so story"?

Simple. Because, unless the Bible is inerrant, our experience is unintelligable. Logic, science, morality, our ability to trust our senses ultimately depend upon the truth of that story. Without the truth of that story, our reasoning is futile.

God Bless,
Adam

[22. Paul said the following at 6:48 PM on Feb 12:]

22

Interestingly enough. While evolution offers an interesting explanation for how life evolved to what it is. (and if you're honest and open-minded you have to admit that natural selection does indeed occur, just not at the species level), it does NOT provide an explanation for origin.

Or in other words, evolution does not explain how we came to be from nothing. It only takes up after the "Big Bang."

next time you're in a discussion with an evolutionist, bring up origin. there's no answer for it. :)

[23. k. said the following at 7:14 PM on Feb 12:]

23

farmer Tom - While Darwin was certainly a flawed product of his era, it is important to note that he hardly mentioned humans -- or race -- in Origin. Instead, he focused on variations within species, and how those variations affected their ability to survive and successfully reproduce.

There's no question that Darwin held views that are now considered racist. However, that alone doesn't invalidate the theories he advanced in Origin.

Incidentally, Darwin is not the only well-known author who expressed views we now consider repugnant. Martin Luther, in addition to his well-known theses, wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies>On the Jews and Their Lies, which is absolutely sickening. However, I don't know any Christians who cite this as a reason to throw Luther out the window, figuratively speaking.

[24. John said the following at 7:15 PM on Feb 12:]

24

"Zillions of Christians hold what you call a 'lowly' view of scripture. Check out Canada's church, the United Church of Canada; and liberal Anglicans, and some Quakers, and on and on... Instead of 'lowly', they'd probably call it 'accurate', just as you call your view of the Bible accurate."

Zillions of people who think they are christian.

Either Ted is right and they are wrong or they are right and Ted is wrong.

[25. k. said the following at 7:17 PM on Feb 12:]

25

JB - Looks like we think along similar lines. :)

[26. farmer Tom said the following at 7:33 PM on Feb 12:]

26

Josh and JB, nice try,

yes I've read it, and no you don't get a pass for playing stupid.

Origin was published in 1859, and Darwin limited most of the discussion to animals etc. But in 1871 he published The Descent of Man.
It takes the ideas in Origin to their logical conclusions in Descent. Eugenics and racism, in fact Eugenics was word coined by Darwins cousin.

Maybe you need a little light reading for the evening, and no I have not read this one.

"From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany"
Richard Weikart, Palgrave MacMillan

[27. Chris said the following at 7:34 PM on Feb 12:]

27

Paul writes:

Or in other words, evolution does not explain how we came to be from nothing. It only takes up after the "Big Bang."

next time you're in a discussion with an evolutionist, bring up origin. there's no answer for it. :)

What do you mean by "nothing"? If you mean what existed before the Big Bang, you're in the wrong field. Evolution doesn't concern itself with the Big Bang. Try physics.

If you're talking about how life came to start on the earth, there are some theories. The most interesting one that I've seen involves asteroid impacts. There was actually an experiment where scientists made up a mixture of stuff they theorized would be in the early atmosphere. They then "smashed" an "asteroid" into the mixture with a super cool rail gun. (I wish I had a link to the experiment and video. If anything, it's cool to watch people smash things with rail guns.)

What resulted from simple chemicals was not just amino acids (as expected) but peptides (if I remember correctly). Rather interesting.

Proof? No, but it's an interesting hypothesis.

(BTW, don't bother getting into the Big Bang/origin issue. Science basically admits that trying to determine was happened before the Big Bang (Planck time or epoch or something like that) cannot be described by the model.)

[28. Matthew said the following at 7:42 PM on Feb 12:]

28

Paul,

If you're speaking of the big bang and the creation of the cosmos, that's where the physicists come in and evolutionists have no bearing whatsoever (so if that's what you mean by "origins," that's irrelevant to evolution.) If you mean how molecules became RNA, DNA, and cells... there are experiments that have showed some things, but they're certainly not very convincing to me.

I would be careful of smugly bringing up "origins" the next time you talk to an evolutionist because he'll probably think that you're just trying to throw in something unnecessary.

[29. Hannah said the following at 8:02 PM on Feb 12:]

29

Out of curiosity has anyone read "Darwin's Proof" or "Darwin's God" by Cornelius Hunter. Or how about "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe?

[30. farmer Tom said the following at 8:17 PM on Feb 12:]

30

Mein Kampf

My Fight

and according to Hitler himself, this title was inspired by Darwin and The Struggle.

Again I will say, as I have on previous occasions, some of you are ignorant of history and the facts involved,

American Heritage Dictionary
ig·no·rant
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

You need to do a lot of reading on history, using critical thinking skills, instead of parroting whatever the professor told you.

[31. Chris said the following at 8:24 PM on Feb 12:]

31

Catherine writes:

The point of intelligent design is that there is no "chance" directing evolution, but that God is the One directing the changes, and if you research the evidence, it makes more sense that the changes are God-driven, not by accident (like the Cambrian explosion).

Actually, ID proponents are usually very careful to avoid any mention of God; otherwise, they basically admit that attempts to teach it in science class in public schools are attempts to instill religious beliefs in public schools. They often point out that the intelligent designer is not necessarily a deity.

That said, perhaps someone here who supports ID could explain to me the mechanism behind the intelligent designers's efforts. In other words, if you're going to say evolution is wrong and bad science, provide me with an alternative explanation. Here's what I mean.

Let's run a thought experiment to test whether or not evolution is a good model/theory. Remember that evolution and natural selection theorize that species best suited to their environments will prosper and pass on their genes to the next generation. If there is a change in the environment, the new "best suited" species should prosper. If there are small, random genetic changes over time, these will be bad, neutral, or good. Good ones will help a species prosper (and will be propagated), bad ones will hinder (and should thus not be propagated as much). Neutral ones are real interesting since at some time in the future they may be either good or bad.

In this thought experiment, we will vacate Australia of all humans and their effects except for necessary scientific equipment to monitor things like weather, seismic activity, etc. No one will be permitted to live there. Only scientists will be allowed to visit to make observations.

Over the next 50 million years in our thought experiment, scientists will catalogue every species in a yearly expedition. They'll take DNA samples, count populations, and so forth. They'll remotely monitor animals and plant life with cleverly hidden cameras, satellite photography, recon drones, etc. in order to understand migrations, herd behavior, etc.

If, indeed, evolution is a good model, the scientists should start to see things happen. In fact, they should see new species evolve. (Here we define new species as one incapable of reproducing with the old species. We will test this in our thought experiment by cloning the old and new species from our DNA retain samples and attempting to mate them.) Scientists should be able to track small, subtle, random changes over time. They should be able to correlate changes in species to both these mutations and to changes in the environment. (Plus, we'll finally settle the global warming debate!)

If you want, you can expand this thought experiment to include entire planets (both with and without pre-existing life).

Could someone please come up with a similar thought experiment that shows how an intelligent designer affects changes that evolution says are caused by changes in the environment and random mutations? I'd be particularly interested in two things: a) how would one observe the designer making these changes? and b) what type of thought experiment could be designed to examine how the designer itself was created?

Remember, it's a thought experiment, so you are not limited by time or money.

[32. Louise said the following at 9:24 PM on Feb 12:]

32

Here's another interesting Darwin fact...he was married to a member of the Wedgewood family, as in the tableware/china.

I just love trivia!

[33. Peter Wells said the following at 9:56 PM on Feb 12:]

33

Catherine: The problem with that idea is that you're still creating the 'solution' without evidence. Saying you can't find an answer so it must be God is a chimera -- you can't prove it's God, it could be anything at all, including a limitation in your own understanding. Jean Meisler covers that kind of thinking in "Superstition in All Ages".

Yes, I know. I'm an evil liberal who doesn't believe in a literal creation. Funnily enough, it doesn't seem to detract from Christ's message.

There are a lot of things I fail to grasp about Creationism, but if someone would like to enlighten me, I'm more than prepared to reconsider. I've done that on abortion and I'm prepared to do it again.

For example: Entropy. Second law of Thermodynamics, the idea that temperature wants to become uniform, basically. Eventually, Entropy will cause the universe to stop functioning, and everything will cease to exist because no work can be done. There are variations on this theme, but they all end the same way. Universe stops working.

In creationism, there are two explainations for this. First, God made Entropy as a system of His universe and therefore things aren't perfect like Genesis claimed, because His creation is actually in the process of dying.

Alternatively, Adam and Eve's Sin causes God to 'break' His perfect creation and thus creates Entropy. Which begs... a)God can change the laws of physics if he wants, so scientifically it's anything goes. What's the point in studying anything when God might change it tomorrow? b) How did anything work without Entropy? It's kind of necessary in order to make things happen. c) Adam and Eve mess up and so God decides to damn the entire universe to heat death? I don't want to question God, but it seems a little extreme. There are simpler ways to achieve the same thing, if you're God.

But there's no mention of "I'm going to destroy the universe" when God's dishing out the punishments in Genesis, so that doesn't work either.

So yeah. That there is the number one problem I have with Genesis. And it has nothing to do with evolution, specifically. Evolution is something I consider simply because Genesis makes less sense.

I'm ready to hear all arguments!

[34. Josh said the following at 11:25 PM on Feb 12:]

34

How is the Creation story *not* a "just so story"?

"Simple. Because, unless the Bible is inerrant, our experience is unintelligable. Logic, science, morality, our ability to trust our senses ultimately depend upon the truth of that story. Without the truth of that story, our reasoning is futile."

You can't honestly expect a non-Christian to accept this though. Basically you applied one epistemological criterion to junk a curiously indistinct entity you call "evolution" and then turned right around and said it doesn't apply to you! Surely intellectual honesty falls under that "do not lie" part of the Law!

Its amazing to me the twisting and turning that some creationists will do to support their view. They will look you in the eye and tell you that scientific evidence is not admissible against the Biblical record and that it doesn't matter, and then five seconds later they will try their hardest to show that science *does* support the Bible. Procrustean gymnastics at its finest.

And to anticipate another discussion I'd like to say "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ"
etc etc

[35. John D. said the following at 6:53 AM on Feb 13:]

35

Most people assume that the theory of evolution is as scientific as it gets, but remember that science is based on observation.

The only kind of evolution that has actually been observed is evolution within species (white moths on dark trees, or drug-resistant bacteria, for example). That has been observed, and can be called "science."

Evolution from one species to another has not been observed, merely guessed at. Darwin himself admitted that the fossil record was notably devoid of evidence of intermediate forms of evolving animals. Evolution between species, therefore, remains only a theory, and must be taken on (that's right) faith.

Darwinism really is a kind of alternative creation story, a kind of secular religion. It is essentially incompatible with belief in the Bible.

It may strike you as anti-rational and anti-scientific to believe that God made the world in six days, as revealed in Genesis. It is also anti-rational and anti-scientific to believe that a man who walked the earth 2,000 years ago is still alive and has any influence over our lives.

Our faith is foolishness to those who are perishing. I Cor. 2:14

[36. J.T. said the following at 8:55 AM on Feb 13:]

36

I thought Darwin Day was April 1.

(HA! HA! Get it?)

[37. Adam said the following at 8:56 AM on Feb 13:]

37

Josh,

You can't honestly expect a non-Christian to accept this though. Basically you applied one epistemological criterion to junk a curiously indistinct entity you call "evolution" and then turned right around and said it doesn't apply to you! Surely intellectual honesty falls under that "do not lie" part of the Law!

Josh, I didn't say it "doesn't apply to me," I just said that, because we derive our worldview from the Bible, we can answer the epistemological problems that I mentioned. However, the evolutionist cannot do so. He is stuck trying to understand the world without starting with the fear of the Lord, and thus, is making his experience unintelligible. Sense perception and the principle of induction are just two of the examples of that. However, if we trust in God and his promises then we have answers for those things. Thus, a worldview in which the scriptures are inerrant can account for sense perception and induction, while an evolutionary worldview cannot.

Its amazing to me the twisting and turning that some creationists will do to support their view. They will look you in the eye and tell you that scientific evidence is not admissible against the Biblical record and that it doesn't matter, and then five seconds later they will try their hardest to show that science *does* support the Bible. Procrustean gymnastics at its finest.

Josh, the problem is how do you take the evidence. That is the issue. If we do not start there, then we are not recognizing that what you will take as evidence for a particular position will be a function of your worldview. What you or I will accept as evidence for the other person's position will be a function of our entire view of reality, how we know what we know, and how we should live our lives. Thus, that does not help us one bit. We have to get down to the task of dealing with the fact that Darwinian evolution is an entire worldview. We must ask whether the evolutionary model or the Christian version of the creationist model can provide us with the preconditions for intelligability of reality. Thus, I am arguing that the proof of the truth of the scriptures is in this, that without the truth of the scriptures, you cannot prove anything. Without the truth of the Christian scriptures, sense perception, science, logic, and morality become impossible.

God Bless,
Adam

[38. Denise Morris said the following at 10:38 AM on Feb 13:]

38

Hello Friends,

I really don't have much to add to this conversation, but I will say this. I'd be careful to say that believing in Darwinian evolution leads to racism or something like Nazism. When presenting philosophical arguments, words like "leads" are very important. Yes people can misconstrue something like Darwinian evolution and use it as a means to get to their racist activities. People have said the same thing about Christianity -- people have used it to justify things like the Crusades or American slavery.

I once had a conversation with a guy who is much smarter than me about this topic. He does not believe in Darwinian evolution, but he also doesn't think that, when applied through sound, valid inference it leads to what Hitler did.

Logically, is does not imply ought.

Again, I don't know a ton about the subject, but I trust my friend who does.

All of this to say, we need to be careful when presenting arguments. We need to think logically and make sure that the same arguments we're using can't be turned against the worldview we are putting forth as the correct alternative.

I hope some of this made sense. :-)

[39. Matthew said the following at 11:58 AM on Feb 13:]

39

John D, evolution of new species has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I would recommend spending some time cruising around TalkOrigins, as they have a lot of straight-up scientific evidence that ought to be weighed.

[40. Ted Slater said the following at 12:30 PM on Feb 13:]

40

Matthew -- the Talk Origins site is quite unconvincing. The rebuttal seemed more reasonable to me than the arguments in favor of evolution given on Talk Origins.

This theory makes the most sense to me....

[41. Louise said the following at 1:26 PM on Feb 13:]

41

www.venganza.org

[42. Jethro said the following at 2:59 PM on Feb 13:]

42

Two questions:

1. For those who believe in Creationism: How do you reconcile simultaneously deriding evolution for the lack of evidence supporting it, while claiming there is sufficient evidence for creationism? Answers in Genesis and the like hardly outweigh the evidence for evolution...

2. For those who are ID'ers: how does ID prove anything about God? Demonstrate to me that the 'designer' eluded to in ID is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the pixie who lives in my garden.

[43. JB said the following at 3:05 PM on Feb 13:]

43

Ted,

I find your rebuttal unconvincing. For example, it states, "Definitions of “species” and (therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen."

On the contrary, this has been observed to happen in the species Spartina anglica which arose in the late 19th century and have been an invasive marsh grass in Western Europe ever since. There is good evidence for an increase in both the amount and quality of its genetic information as a result of allopolyploidy and subsequent mutation and selection. Macroevolution in action!

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/10/1863
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/130/4/1587.pdf

[44. farmer Tom said the following at 4:47 PM on Feb 13:]

44

Denise Morris,

Hi, Denise. I'm sure you respect your friend. He may be a very smart guy. That has nothing to do with whether or not Hitler was motivated by the ideas of Darwin. I have a friend who thinks the moon is made of green cheese and he's a really cool guy.

Marvin Olasky is very respected in Christian journalistic circles. Have you read this interview from World Magazine?

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/OlaskyHitler.php

I will continue to link Darwinian evolution and Hitler as well as Marx and the Atheistic Communism he promoted because both of those worldviews are directly opposed to the God of the Bible. They were introduced by men who rejected God and his created order in favor of a system which put man at the center. If one had evolved to the highest levels, then he was entitled to have authority over the lesser evolved humans around him. Evolutionary Darwinism is an appeal to authority based not on God's authority, but on survival of the fittest, the superiority of the favored races.

[45. Jacob Douvier said the following at 5:45 PM on Feb 13:]

45

1. For those who believe in Creationism: How do you reconcile simultaneously deriding evolution for the lack of evidence supporting it, while claiming there is sufficient evidence for creationism? Answers in Genesis and the like hardly outweigh the evidence for evolution...

It's a question of authority. Evolutionary thinking is built on presuppositions antithetical to Christianity. I do no let non-Christians tell me the rules for my own game, so why should I feel any need to play theirs? Your worldview determines what counts as evidence, what one will accept as evidence, and what counts as a reliable way of knowing. There is no neutral vantage point from which to objectively evaluate evidence. We are all committed to a worldview of some sort, and that worldview shapes and establishes the rules by which we think reality can work.

Frankly, it's not really worth my time to answer your question because you are probably not interested in any answers I or anyone else would give because you have already decided that they are wrong. It's not about evidence, it's about prior commitments.

[46. Andrew Spivack said the following at 6:18 PM on Feb 13:]

46

Oh goody, let's all hear what Tom Neven -- a gentleman with about as much scientific training as my best friend's puppy -- has to say about the science of evolution. Maybe then I -- someone who has never fired a BB gun -- can explain to the former Marine how to *properly* clean an M-16.

Tom, give it up. Seriously. Is your general assumption that no one with a scientific education above 6th grade reads this blog?? Are you really trying to sell the idea that altruism presents a problem for evolution? Come on, not even most of your creationist peers dare to trot this one out into the light of day for fear (very reasonable fear) that they'd get laughed back into the shadows.

[47. Andrew Spivack said the following at 6:35 PM on Feb 13:]

47

Farmer Tom, you may continue doing whatever you feel like doing. It is the refuge of the desperate to talk continuously about the Nazis. It simply means you cannot attack evolution on its merits (and you obviously can't), so you're sinking to the lowest possible common denominator -- Nazis. Good luck there.

By the way -- Werner Heisenberg was a Nazi. Therefore I'm assuming you don't believe in quantum mechanics either. Which, of course, means you don't use computers or any modern electronics, since solid state transistors are all based on the quantum theory. I'm correct, am I not, farmer Tom?

[48. Patricia said the following at 6:58 PM on Feb 13:]

48

I'm jumping in late here, but I just wanted to say that in my opinion, I think there can be difference of opinion on this issue amongst Christians. It seems to that what is important is to agree is the underlying messages in Geesis that affect how we as Christians view human history-ie that God created the heavens and earth, the his creation is good, Man was made in his image and given authority over creation, and original sin is the result of man's disobedience to God. Evolution only describes how biological life evolved-it does not even attempt to answer any of these questions.

[49. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:14 PM on Feb 13:]

49

Farmer Tom: I could not agree more. While all evolution supporters do not embrace the eugenic and genocidal implications of Darwin's hypothesis, it is irrefutable that the great thugs of the 20th century would not have reached their potential minus Darwin.

[50. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:37 PM on Feb 13:]

50

1. For those who believe in Creationism: How do you reconcile simultaneously deriding evolution for the lack of evidence supporting it, while claiming there is sufficient evidence for creationism? Answers in Genesis and the like hardly outweigh the evidence for evolution...

For one thing, I've never claimed that Creation was scientific, at least not in terms of its subjection to the scientific method. After all, the scientific method requires (1) observation, (2) hypothesis, (3) experimentation, and (4) analysis. In that respect, Creation is not scientific.

Neither, for that matter, is macro-evolution, the brand of evolution that is at the center of controversy. It fails because you have no experimental means to verify it. And the proposed evolutionary models simply don't fit the data.

[51. John D. said the following at 7:38 PM on Feb 13:]

51

Marxism and its cousin Nazism flow naturally from Darwinian philosophy.

If there is no Creator, if human beings are merely a few atoms that came together randomly for no reason, and there is no Lawgiver to declare and enforce absolutes of right and wrong, then nothing is right and nothing is wrong, and nothing matters.

Most people who profess belief in evolution are not willing to take their worldview to its logical conclusion: if people are only 98 cents worth of chemicals that evolved by chance, then murder is not wrong; September 11 was not wrong; the Holocaust was not wrong. Power flows from the barrel of a gun, and killing 50 million, as Mao did in China, is just the next step in evolving the species.

Most people will instinctively recoil from those statements, suggesting that there is some consciousness of absolute truth and morality in them, even if they don't recognize it.

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in [people]; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20.

Once people are led to see the utter moral bankruptcy of Darwinism, perhaps they are ready for the Gospel.

[52. Fran said the following at 7:56 PM on Feb 13:]

52

As a biologist, I agree with evolution. Evolution by definition is a gradual change over time or a quick change over time. These changes effect the genotype (genes) or phenotype (appearance). (The change in genotype will effect the next generation.) However, as a believer in Christ, I believe in Creationism by God.

[53. JB said the following at 10:53 PM on Feb 13:]

53

Jacob,

I agree with you that there is no independent standard by which worldviews may be judged. I don't think that means that worldviews must be accepted only on the basis of authority - there are some internal checks one can make - but I agree with you that from the perspective of a traditionalist Christian the scientific evidence for evolution is entirely beside the point. The problem, I think, arises when creationists don't deny the efficacy of scientific thinking for coming to knowledge about the world but instead try to argue that the scientific evidence for creationism is superior to that for evolution. While it's entirely tenable to reject scientific evidence about origins as irrelevant, presenting creationism as scientifically supported is factually wrong and a misunderstanding of the fundamental principles of empirical natural science. It just strikes me as strange that people like the Answers in Genesis folks effectively concede the scientific paradigm and try to argue within it when it would be much easier and more consistent to reject science as a way to truth altogether.

[54. JB said the following at 11:35 PM on Feb 13:]

54

Farmer Tom, Amir, and John D,

I don't understand what you're getting at with this business about Hitler. First, the theory of evolution has no moral implications at all. It's a purely descriptive theory with no normative components. The fact that the fittest species survive and supplant less fit ones does not imply that this is good. You might believe that natural selection is a good thing and you might seek to facilitate it, but this has no more to do with the theory of evolution than being a member of the NRA has to do with the chemistry of gun powder.

Second, I understand that you base your moral theory on a literal understanding of the Bible, but that doesn't mean that no other moral theories are possible. Did God need to create the world literally in six days in order to give us moral law? Your personal difficulty with the idea of morality divorced from miraculous creation does not mean that a real difficulty exists with the concept. Plato, Kant, and John Stuart Mill, for example, did not need to resort to the Genesis account to give quite coherent moral theories (which would, by the way, all preclude mass murder.)

Third, even if there were moral implications to the theory of evolution, this would have nothing to do with its correctness. You may not like the moral implications of the theory of gravity, but this doesn't count against it. The validity of a scientific theory can only be disputed on the level of empirical scientific evidence.

Fourth, it is not the case that the theory of evolution was the only possible inspiration for the Holocaust. The Inquisition and the pogroms of Eastern Europe did not need to consult the Origin of Species to generate lethal anti-Semitism, nor did Martin Luther. In fact, as a historical point, the Nazis invoked Luther's anti-Semitism repeatedly to justify the Holocaust. The clear line of ideology is seen in the demonization of Jews by the Nazis. This is an idea derived from Luther - natural selection does not require that one's genetic inferiors be despicable.

Fifth, as for Marxism, Marx's ideas about the development of production stem clearly from Hegel - who died about thirty years before the Origin of Species was published in English. Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and his Communist Manifesto were both published before he could have read Darwin's great work published in 1859. Sure, Marx apparently read Darwin before he wrote Capital, but to say that evolutionary theory was necessary to the development of Marxism is absurd.

[55. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:10 AM on Feb 14:]

55

JB says (emphasis mine): I don't understand what you're getting at with this business about Hitler. First, the theory of evolution has no moral implications at all. It's a purely descriptive theory with no normative components. The fact that the fittest species survive and supplant less fit ones does not imply that this is good. You might believe that natural selection is a good thing and you might seek to facilitate it, but this has no more to do with the theory of evolution than being a member of the NRA has to do with the chemistry of gun powder.

That is the non-sequitur of all time, JB. That it is amoral--morally neutral--only fuels its applicability by the great thugs of the last century. Their social engineering agendas were Darwinian all the way. One need not be a Biblical literalist to appreciate that fact.

JB further says: Second, I understand that you base your moral theory on a literal understanding of the Bible, but that doesn't mean that no other moral theories are possible. Did God need to create the world literally in six days in order to give us moral law? Your personal difficulty with the idea of morality divorced from miraculous creation does not mean that a real difficulty exists with the concept. Plato, Kant, and John Stuart Mill, for example, did not need to resort to the Genesis account to give quite coherent moral theories (which would, by the way, all preclude mass murder.)

Plato, Kant, and John Stuart Mill were hardly transcendent in their proposition of morality. A relativist could look at the three of them and say, "Well...that's their opinions. And they are dead. So they have no meaning to me."

The morality they propose carries no objective source. Ergo, it is meaningless. If you try to appeal to a non-transcendental basis, the nihilists will take you to the woodshed.

More from JB: Third, even if there were moral implications to the theory of evolution, this would have nothing to do with its correctness. You may not like the moral implications of the theory of gravity, but this doesn't count against it. The validity of a scientific theory can only be disputed on the level of empirical scientific evidence.

Macro-evolution fails the scientific test for the same reason that Creation does: neither have empirical proof. There is disagreement among evolutionists regarding the correct model. The best you can come up with is "lots of micro-evolution over time equals macro-evolution". Hasn't been proven empirically.

On the other hand, Behe has handed a hypothesis--Irreducible Complexity (IC)--that can be tested empirically, and which blows a gaping hole into Darwin and his successors. Take a biological system, and remove any of its base-level components. If the system loses complete functionality, then that system is irreducibly complex.

As for gravity, that is empirical, demonstrable in any number of experiments. If you wish to test it, feel free to jump off the top of Pike's Peak. I do, however, recommend a parachute, as the landing is quite a doozy.

More from JB: ourth, it is not the case that the theory of evolution was the only possible inspiration for the Holocaust. The Inquisition and the pogroms of Eastern Europe did not need to consult the Origin of Species to generate lethal anti-Semitism, nor did Martin Luther. In fact, as a historical point, the Nazis invoked Luther's anti-Semitism repeatedly to justify the Holocaust. The clear line of ideology is seen in the demonization of Jews by the Nazis. This is an idea derived from Luther - natural selection does not require that one's genetic inferiors be despicable.

No one said that Darwin was the only inspiration for the Holocaust. On the other hand, it added fuel to the fire. That is unmistakable.

While the Pogroms and the Inquisition were indeed horrible chapters in history, the numbers of deaths--in the case of the Inquisition, the annual execution rate was less than that of the state of Texas--are miniscule next to the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler.

More: Fifth, as for Marxism, Marx's ideas about the development of production stem clearly from Hegel - who died about thirty years before the Origin of Species was published in English. Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and his Communist Manifesto were both published before he could have read Darwin's great work published in 1859. Sure, Marx apparently read Darwin before he wrote Capital, but to say that evolutionary theory was necessary to the development of Marxism is absurd.

While Darwin did not inspire Marx, he sure provided the fuel for the implementation of his ideas in later generations. Minus Darwin, eugenics doesn't get to first base. Minus Darwin, the social agendas of Bolshevism, Fascism, Nazism, and even the American Progressive movement, don't carry the same weight.

[56. Paul said the following at 10:34 AM on Feb 14:]

56

By origin, I mean refuting evolutionists who use evolution to rule out the existence of a creator.

Sure you have all of this "scientific" information as to how life began (DNA, peptides, UV light). The classic Miller & Urey experiment (about how inorganics "turned on their own" into organic molecules) just doesn't ring true to me anyway. However, evolution can't answer where all of the stuff (asteroids, planets, comets) came from.

So maybe it's physics, but I don't like it when scientists (of which I'm one) tell me that I'm a fool for believing in God as a Creator because honestly, in my opinion, it takes more faith to believe that we just came here randomly.

[57. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:49 AM on Feb 14:]

57

Paul: Sure you have all of this "scientific" information as to how life began (DNA, peptides, UV light). The classic Miller & Urey experiment (about how inorganics "turned on their own" into organic molecules) just doesn't ring true to me anyway. However, evolution can't answer where all of the stuff (asteroids, planets, comets) came from.

Actually, the Miller-Urey experiment showed us very little, as the resultant products were not compatible with what we are finding was the composition of the early atmosphere.

The experiment--at best--showed that base-level eleements and compounds can combine to become organic molecules.

It does not, however, demonstrate a case for the development of an organism, which is more than molecules.

In fact, all organisms have one or more homeostatic control systems that employ the use of positive and negative feedback to regulate various parameters (pH, temperature, etc.)

As an engineering graduate, I can tell you that such systems provide an observational case for a designer, as even the simplest such systems require substantial mathematical modeling (differential equations) for accurate design.

Feedback control systems are a vital part of our lives, from thermostats, humidity control, flight control systems on aircraft, robotics, electronic regulatory devices, etc.

Those require intelligence.

If mechanical control systems require intelligence for their design, then one can reasonably infer that biological control systems--many of which are far more precise in the regulatory parameters than mechanical--are also the product of intelligence.

Dembski, the proponent of Intelligent Design, actually has an impressive mathematical model demonstrating the probability of a Designer.

Now, mind you, it does not constitute empirical evidence--hence my contention that ID is not scientific--but it is no less scientific than macro-evolution.

[58. Patricia said the following at 10:56 AM on Feb 14:]

58

This might seem obvious but it seems to me the debate is not over Christians have a "high" view of scripture but whether one has to hold a literal understanding of scripture for scripture to be inerrant. To me, it seems logically consistent to say that, for example, Psalms should be read as poetry, clearly different than a book of the Gospels, which are historical. I don't think this means I don't have a "high" or "authoritative" view of scripture. I just believe that this is how scripture was meant to be read.

[59. Jacob Douvier said the following at 10:59 AM on Feb 14:]

59

JB,
I wholeheartedly agree that there have been some pretty bad movies by creation science ministries. Some of them seem to have forgot (or never learned) the lesson we learned day one in philosophy: just because you agree with an argument's conclusion doesn't mean it's a good argument. I think the entropy argument that use to be all the rage in Creation science circles is a good example of this. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon with that argument, but now almost all of them recognize it's a bad argument.

It just strikes me as strange that people like the Answers in Genesis folks effectively concede the scientific paradigm and try to argue within it when it would be much easier and more consistent to reject science as a way to truth altogether.

I think the reason why they do not reject science altogether is because they recognize that they do not need to. The problem, however, is that rather than rethinking what science would be like based on a Biblical worldview, they seek to play by the rules of what is called science by a group of people who, largely, hold antithetical beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality. It's not a question of who is being scientific and who is not so much as what is science and who gets to decided: Naturalists or supernaturalists.

[60. JB said the following at 2:30 PM on Feb 14:]

60

Jacob,

That's an interesting point. What do you think would be the characteristics of a science based more on biblical principles?

I think a lot of scientists, and especially the new crop of militant atheists, have taken the untenable position that science is a way to knowledge about the world in an ontological sense. And even worse are the people who try to use science as a normative principle. I think properly understood, empirical natural science is a self-contained system which is intelligible within itself but which can make no claims about how the world "really" is. It can give us a mathematical model for an atom which allows us to make a nuclear power plant, but it can't tell us anything about what atoms really are like and it certainly can't tell us whether or not we should invest in nuclear power. People like Richard Dawkins seem to believe that nothing is true unless it can be proven scientifically, not realizing that this position is self-contradictory.

So when I say that I "believe in" evolution, I really mean something like, "I think that the theory of evolution does a better job making sense of our observations about the natural world than any competing scientific theory." An atheist biologist and a creationist who believes that creation is such that it appears to have evolved can both be evolutionists in the same sense. Maybe if this debate were carried out on the level of, "Which model best describes the world as we see it?" rather than, "How was the world really created?" we could diffuse a lot of the theological angst that surrounds this issue.

[61. Chris said the following at 2:31 PM on Feb 14:]

61

Amir writes:

On the other hand, Behe has handed a hypothesis--Irreducible Complexity (IC)--that can be tested empirically, and which blows a gaping hole into Darwin and his successors. Take a biological system, and remove any of its base-level components. If the system loses complete functionality, then that system is irreducibly complex.

This is a definition of irreducible complexity, not a test that "blows a gaping hole" in evolution. Look up references to the infamous Dover trial, and you'll see how poor a model/theory IC is.

[62. JB said the following at 2:47 PM on Feb 14:]

62

Amir,

Perhaps we have some common ground. Take eugenics for instance. This was a practice which was undoubtedly wrong and which was promoted by people who read a lot of Darwin and got the idea into their heads that they could improve the gene pool. So I think it would be fair to say that the theory of evolution influenced the practice of eugenics.

However, I don't think that the theory of evolution necessarily implies eugenics or is wholly responsible for the practice. Darwinian evolution says that less fit members of a species will not reproduce and will not pass on their genes, but it does not say that this is a good or bad thing or that the process should be facilitated or impeded. It is amoral, yes, but amoral in the same sense that gravity is amoral i.e., a scientific theory on its own has no moral import, not that it denies the possibility of morality. Furthermore, eugenics also occurred within a society which already devalued the mentally and physically disabled. It could never have gained traction if this were not the case.

Similarly, the link between evolutionary theory and Nazism and Marxism is, I think, little more than a matter of historical interest. One who believes in evolution need not go down those paths, and if s/he does it's due to other influences. And neither Nazism nor Marxism needed evolution, either, as both had firm foundations in other ideologies.

In any case, I am genuinely confused - what is the import to this argument linking evolution to Nazism? Are we to reject a theory if some people who believe it do bad things?

[63. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:24 PM on Feb 14:]

63

Chris writes: This is a definition of irreducible complexity, not a test that "blows a gaping hole" in evolution. Look up references to the infamous Dover trial, and you'll see how poor a model/theory IC is.

Sure it blows gaping holes into evolution. Here is why: it sends evolutionary biologists back to the drawing board.

Evolutionists are under substantial pressure to provide models that describe the data, which include the fossil record. IC threatens that, because it provides a case for systems that may not have evolved from base-level elements. That does throw a loop into macro-evolution.

While many fundies have jumped onto the IC bandwagon, it is NOT a proof for ID. It may provide a framework that enhances Dembski's mathematical model, but it does not PROVE a designer.

It does, however, threaten the efficacy of many evolutionary models.

[64. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:39 PM on Feb 14:]

64

JB writes: However, I don't think that the theory of evolution necessarily implies eugenics or is wholly responsible for the practice. Darwinian evolution says that less fit members of a species will not reproduce and will not pass on their genes, but it does not say that this is a good or bad thing or that the process should be facilitated or impeded. It is amoral, yes, but amoral in the same sense that gravity is amoral i.e., a scientific theory on its own has no moral import, not that it denies the possibility of morality. Furthermore, eugenics also occurred within a society which already devalued the mentally and physically disabled. It could never have gained traction if this were not the case.

Darwin's views--or lack thereof--with respect to eugenics--are moot. That Utopian social engineers--in the scientific, educational, and governmental realms--have attached to Darwin's ideas to create a "Master Race" or a "New Man" or to remodel society according to a grand plan using a racialist or other social agenda, is quite noteworthy. Fact is, the worst murderers of all time were quite Darwinian in their approach.

More from JB: Similarly, the link between evolutionary theory and Nazism and Marxism is, I think, little more than a matter of historical interest.

It's not just evolution linked to Marxism or Nazism. It's evolution linked to Utopian social agendas. In this case, we are talking Nazism and Communism. We could also throw fascism and its more benign American variants, going back to the Progressive movement, which was in fact quite complementary of Nazism and Italian Fascism at the time.

One who believes in evolution need not go down those paths, and if s/he does it's due to other influences.

That may be true logically, but not empirically. Vox Day demonstrates this quite decisively in The Irrational Atheist. If you think this is merely about Hitler and Stalin, you are mistaken.

And neither Nazism nor Marxism needed evolution, either, as both had firm foundations in other ideologies.

But without Social Darwinism, they would not have had their impetus. At the time, Fascism was all the rave, even here in the United States. Our academics praised Hitler, Mussolini, and even Lenin and Stalin. The social engineering components were Darwinism all the way, and our intelligentsia--from John Dewey to Woodrow Wilson--praised it.

In hindsight, we loathe Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin, but remember we are using hindsight. Back in the early part of the 20th century, fascism and other Utopian experiments did not have the evil connotations that they have today.

[65. Jacob Douvier said the following at 6:41 PM on Feb 14:]

65

That's an interesting point. What do you think would be the characteristics of a science based more on biblical principles?

JB,
I'm still thinking about this. I've had some of the separate pieces of this idea rolling around in my head since I took philosophy of science junior year of college, but I've only recently put them together like so. At this point, I'm not exactly sure what it would look like. I have some friends who are much more scientifically minded than I am, and I'm hoping to have some good conversations with them on the subject.

Maybe if this debate were carried out on the level of, "Which model best describes the world as we see it?" rather than, "How was the world really created?" we could diffuse a lot of the theological angst that surrounds this issue.

I do think asking, "what theory best fits the world as I see it," would be a better question to ask. I don't know how much "theological angst" it would diffuse (maybe you could elaborate?). I know for myself and many others, making Genesis symbolic and not literal undermines the idea of original sin and death entering the world because of sin. Since man's hopeless, sinful condition is why Christ died for our sins, by extension, you could say that denying the historicity of Genesis undermines the Gospel itself. I understand that there are counters to this concern, but I think it's helpful to make note of this.

[66. Chris said the following at 7:21 PM on Feb 14:]

66

JB hits the nail on the head with:

Maybe if this debate were carried out on the level of, "Which model best describes the world as we see it?" rather than, "How was the world really created?" we could diffuse a lot of the theological angst that surrounds this issue.

This, I think, is the major point. Theories are *models* that one can use to describe how the world works or why we observe what we observe. Models have value in that they can be used to predict things. Stephen Hawking does a good job of explaining this.

[67. farmer Tom said the following at 7:53 PM on Feb 14:]

67

In any case, I am genuinely confused - what is the import to this argument linking evolution to Nazism? Are we to reject a theory if some people who believe it do bad things?

JB an excellent question and in reality the most important question in the whole evolution discussion.

My friend Dennis says, "Ideas have consequences". If you believe that you can stick you hand into a burning flame without it causing you pain, then you are free to put your hand into the flame. But if you believe that flesh will burn, that the pain involved is not pleasant, you will do your best to avoid putting your hand anywhere near an open flame, fire or even anything hot. "Ideas have consequences".

If your idea of a man is simply a collection of chemicals, randomly mixed, simply a happenstance of time and chance. You hold to the idea that this same man is nothing more than an evolved monkey, a glorified earthworm, a mutated squirrel, acted upon by circumstance, environment, and relationships. Then those ideas have consequences.

If you believe that man is as I described above, then the natural result of that belief is a glorified animal with no soul, no special features different than the other animals in the universe. Our rights come from the superiority of power, genetics and location. There is no "imago dei" (Image of God). Man is worth nothing more than the value of the chemicals and minerals from which he is formed.

And therefore there is no logical reason that I as a superior human can not use my power and intellect to exterminate, destroy, eliminate the inferior, lesser humans around me. I am the fittest, I control my destiny, I am unaccountable to anyone who is not my superior therefore I am my own god.

Materialistic evolutionary uniformitarianism
denies, and in fact outright rejects the concept of a Creator God. You are appalled by the association of Nazism and Marxism with evolution because those policical systems are evil. Yet those political systems are built on a foundation of evolutionary uniformitarianism. Both systems hated and tried to remove the very concept of God from their belief system. Both systems valued man for nothing more than what he could do for the "system". By removing all of the "inferior" groups within those systems they were actively seeking to "improve" the system. Survival of the fittest etc.

Those belief systems build upon the concept of evolutionary uniformatarianism are not compatible with the Bible. The Bible tells of a Creator God making mankind in His own image. Man becomes a living soul. Man is more than an animal because he is make in God image. He has a soul. Then the rest of the Book tells how man can fix his broken relationship with that Creator God. If man is not a sinful being, a result of Adam's fall, then there is no need of a Savior, no need for Jesus Christ to die on Calvary's cross, no need for the Resurrection, no need for us to live in a manner which pleases that Creator.

"Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" Judges 21:25 will be the pattern for living since there is no Righteous Judge who will judge the Living and the Dead. We are no long accountable before the Creator for "thou shalt not", since there is no Creator.

Ideas have consequences JB, acceptance of evolution means a rejection of the God of the Bible. Evolutionary uniformitarianism is not compatible with Biblical principle.

[68. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:10 AM on Feb 15:]

68

Chris says: This, I think, is the major point. Theories are *models* that one can use to describe how the world works or why we observe what we observe. Models have value in that they can be used to predict things. Stephen Hawking does a good job of explaining this.

That depends on the efficacy of the model itself.

In engineering, for example, mathematical models can depict behavior of systems quite well, because we are dealing with systems that humans actually designed and therefore mathematically understand. Examples include flight simulators, and CAD/CAM/CAE applications. As an aeronautical engineering graduate, I have a great appreciation for such applications.

On the other hand, econometric models are not quite as effective, as those involve many variables that are indeterminate. As the old saying goes, where you get three economists, you can get six opinions...

With respect to macro-evolution, none of the models have shown an efficacy with respect to prediction. The best that the evolutionist can provide is a model that could fit with historical data. Predictive models, on the other hand, have been quite elusive.

Demonstrating that scenarios are mathematically possible is not the same as experimentally demonstrating them.

Evolutionary models are a lot like financial/econometric models: past performance does not equate to future results.

[69. JB said the following at 11:14 AM on Feb 15:]

69

Amir,

The Straussians argue that the idea that the pursuit of utopia trends towards totalitarianism can be found as far back as Plato's Republic. I don't argue that the Nazis were utopians of a sort, but what I think is relevant is that the connection between Darwin and Hitler is entirely non-unique. Neither his antisemitism nor his utopianism required the theory of evolution. Evolution is just a description of the natural world. In order to get a horrible political movement out of it, you need to utilize political ideologies.

I also don't know what you mean when you say that logically evolution need not be connected with totalitarianism but it empirically is. Do you mean that evolutionists are empirically totalitarian? At my university we have lots of biologists, whole buildings full of them, and I have yet to meet one who's a Nazi. Or do you mean that totalitarians necessarily believe in evolution? I don't know why this should be the case and plenty of atrocities were committed in the world prior to 1859.

[70. JB said the following at 11:24 AM on Feb 15:]

70

Jacob,

I think that one could potentially see the Genesis account as a literal, historical one and still use evolutionary theory as a model. In this case, evolution would be a useful fiction. A biologist, for example, might wish to use the theory of evolution in order to predict some biochemical similarities between a known and an unknown species.

[71. JB said the following at 11:38 AM on Feb 15:]

71

Farmer Tom,

Thanks for your reply. I have a couple responses:

First, I appreciate your critique of strict materialism, and I share your view there, but I don't think that the critique is unique to evolution. Aristophanes mocked materialism in The Clouds, millennia before Darwin's birth. I don't think ditching Darwin would do in strict materialism.

Second, I don't think that strict materialism is a necessary consequence of believing in the theory of evolution. The mechanism of our creation is fairly unimportant, I think. Why should my having a soul be dependent upon whether creation happened in six days or six billion years? It seems a tangential issue to me. Just as you can acknowledge that you are made of water, carbon, and a few other elements at the same time you believe you have a soul, I can believe that my genes are derived from some lower animal at the same time I acknowledge that my nature is not merely animal. Plenty of people who believe in evolution maintain this idea without tension. The mistake comes when people believe that if science describes the world, then only things which science can prove are real. I would reject that idea.

Third, the problem of morality, I think, is not unique to evolution. There were nihilists before there were biologists. In any case, there are secular sources of morality that even a nonbeliever can acknowledge. I personally like Kant - you can use a Kantian morality whether you believe that our a priori moral principles come from God or from epiphenomenal rationality. I think there are very few people who truly believe that because of evolution the only moral principle is power. We call those people sociopaths, and I think what is wrong with them is more biological than ideological.

[72. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:11 PM on Feb 15:]

72

JB Says: I also don't know what you mean when you say that logically evolution need not be connected with totalitarianism but it empirically is. Do you mean that evolutionists are empirically totalitarian?

No. Every attempt to implement Utopian social agendas has been VERY connected to Darwin. All Darwinists are not Utopians; almost all Utopians have proven to be Darwinists.

Every major Utopian attempt--eugenics and all--in the last century has been a product of the application of Darwinism to social policy. As I was saying, when these efforts were going on, our academic elite praised them.

It is only now--post WWII--that we look upon those efforts with disdain. But back then, even WEB DuBois was quite complementary of Lenin and Hitler and Mussolini. John Dewey was very enthusiastic about them, too.

And with respect to World War I, the American Progressive movement was neoconservatism on steroids. And Wilson's crackdowns on dissent against the war? He made McCarthy look like a Civil Libertarian. In fact, even Clarence Darrow--Mr. Civil Libertarian--was on Wilson's side.

Back then, fascism was looked at in terms of evolutionary progress.

Part of the upshot of all of this is to beware of what you call "progress".

[73. Chris said the following at 5:02 PM on Feb 15:]

73

Amir writes:

Sure it blows gaping holes into evolution. Here is why: it sends evolutionary biologists back to the drawing board.

Evolutionists are under substantial pressure to provide models that describe the data, which include the fossil record. IC threatens that, because it provides a case for systems that may not have evolved from base-level elements. That does throw a loop into macro-evolution.

I'm sorry, but IC is a very poor argument against evolution. I think this thread has grown long enough that it's not productive to go into the details; however, the Dover case provides some good information:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science

Check somewhere around the pages starting in the 70s and you'll find several references to Behe and how IC has been discredited.

[74. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:29 PM on Feb 15:]

74

Chris: I am very familiar with the arguments surrounding IC, the Dover case in particular. From a scientific standpoint, IC has hardly been discredited because it has not been tested even though it is very testable.

And no, neither mathematical models--nor the pontifications of a federal judge--count as legitimate "tests".

To discredit a falsifiable hypothesis requires the scientific method.

The practice of science requires the scientific method, which involves (a) observation, (b) hypothesis, (c) experimentation, and (d) analysis. If you lack any of those 4--especially the third item--then you are engaging in reason, but not science.

IC doesn't refute evolution; it does, however, blow gaping holes into existing evolutionary models. It would force evolutionists to revise their models, or throw them out and develop new ones.

The premise that a system could be irreducibly complex is indeed a huge blow to existing macro-evolutionary models.

Homeostatic controls--that employ negative feedback for regulative functions, are indeed problematic to Darwin's disciples.

[1. Jo said the following at 3:38 PM on Feb 12:]

1

I always think the general consensus that there is evil in the world is evidence not against God but for him. Evolution sure doesn't explain why we have this lofty concept of objective morality.

On a side note, it's terrible, but until I saw this post I genuinely hadn't realised that Darwin was on our ten pound note.

[2. Louise said the following at 3:38 PM on Feb 12:]

2

Here's an odd fact for everyone...Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same date, Feb. 12, 1809.

Today is a state holiday here in IL.

[3. JB said the following at 3:41 PM on Feb 12:]

3

Actually, Richard Dawkins (yes, that Richard Dawkins) wrote a whole book explaining altruism as an epiphenomenon in The Selfish Gene. It's a pretty cogent argument. Basically, he says that altruism is explainable because members of a kin group share a large number of genes and efforts to support the survival of members of your kin group actually enhances the survival potential of your genes. So behavior that is "selfish" on the molecular level looks "altruistic" at the organism level. Kind of cool.

I agree with you, though, that evolutionary psychology is weak (at best) science. However, if there is independent evidence for evolution(and there is), then I don't see what's wrong with attempting to fit human behavior into that model. There are at least some areas where you can link psychology to biology - say the imprinting of mothers on children due to oxytocin immediately after childbirth - and you can in turn trace the biology along evolutionary pathways.

[4. Sara said the following at 3:41 PM on Feb 12:]

4

Tom, if scientists thought they had a perfect theory of evolution, they wouldn't still be working on it! Why not just follow the investigation instead of stopping abruptly and (if I'm reading the subtext right) considering it another reason to feel more confident about creationism--which has problems of its own that you could just as easily have written about.

[5. Tom Neven said the following at 3:58 PM on Feb 12:]

5

JB

I've read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, and strictly from a logical standpoint they're less than convincing. They are, in short, very long just-so stories. Dawkins simply assumes the thing he sets out to prove.

Sara

I never said anyone should stop any sort of research. I just want people to see some of the critical-thinking errors behind a lot of so-called "science."

[6. Peter Wells said the following at 4:15 PM on Feb 12:]

6

Maybe you'd like to provide us with an alternative scientific viewpoint to evolution then, Tom?

Of course, a lot of people try and claim Intelligent Design is a science, but the thing is with a scientific theory, you take the evidence and come up with a solution, instead of taking the solution (God) and then trying to find evidence to justify Him.

I don't think the theory of evolution poses any threat to God, but I don't think it's totally wrong, either. Eventually they'll find something that points to God, if God made us, right?

And 'just-so' stories? How would they be any different from a scientist's point of view from Genesis? Isn't that just one big 'just-so' story? And more often that not, you'll find that if one scientist doesn't know the real answer, another one will.

[7. JB said the following at 4:22 PM on Feb 12:]

7

Tom,

I don't know that Dawkin's project is to give independent evidence for evolution. He's just trying to explicate the model and show how it can account for behavioral features. What is a scientific theory except an attempt to fit a model to observed evidence? Just-so stories aren't science because you can't make verifiable predictions from them. Dawkins can make a prediction - namely that in nature examples of altruism can be found to increase the survival value of genes being carried by the altruistic organism. Thus, one would see more altruism the closer the genetic association (say, within immediate families) and much less altruism the farther the genetic association (say, cross-species altruism). I think the evidence bears that out. Am I misunderstanding your critique?

[8. Morgan said the following at 4:37 PM on Feb 12:]

8

Ouch! I think that was a little harsh. While I agree that a lot of evolutionary psychology is speculative, and it obviously is not testable, the statement "It's hard to square altruism with his theory that we all seek to maximize the survivability of our line, even if at the expense of others" just is not true. It's simple logic that if you have an altruistic gene and that causes you to help people who are related to you that that gene will be passed on. For instance, if you were to sacrifice yourself and save four siblings, your genes would be passed on twice as well as if you saved yourself (you are 1/2 related to your siblings). This means that the altruism gene would be passed on.

[9. Catherine said the following at 4:39 PM on Feb 12:]

9

Peter, the basis of evolution is that all these changes came along by chance. The point of intelligent design is that there is no "chance" directing evolution, but that God is the One directing the changes, and if you research the evidence, it makes more sense that the changes are God-driven, not by accident (like the Cambrian explosion). It isn't trying to make God fit the evidence - it's looking at the evidence and realizing that it only makes sense if Something is directing evolution.

[10. Sara said the following at 4:42 PM on Feb 12:]

10

Tom,
it isn't just a matter of having arguments that are free from logical errors, it's about developing a model in biology that is best able to account for and predict the ways in which present-day populations are changing, too. Of course you can't empirically test matters of history.

[11. Sara said the following at 4:50 PM on Feb 12:]

11

"Amid the quibbling, it may be pleasantly nostalgic, if not instructive, to recall Darwin sailing on the Beagle"

That's my favourite quote about evolution from the ever-gentle Robert Coles... soothing, and also kind of sad.

[12. Josh said the following at 4:54 PM on Feb 12:]

12

Series of ill-advised Boundless posts about science in 3...2...1...

How is the Creation story *not* a "just so story"?

[13. farmer Tom said the following at 5:00 PM on Feb 12:]

13

Well, boys and girls, it is not logical to start a discussion of St. Darwin, unless we include the entire title of his quintessential
book.

On the Origin of Species

by Means of Natural Selection

all you'll who think Darwin was right, buy into his lies, think that you can tie the Bible and St. Darwin together have a problem,

because you fail to include the rest of the title, the part that points to the evil, wicked and godless nature of Darwinian Evolution. Here it is, can you stand to even read the words, they are filled with hate, condescension and utter contempt for God's created order.

or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,

That's right, Darwin was a racist, a hater of men and women with extra pigment, believed in the superiority of the favoured races, that would be the white race. And some of you want to accept his ideas as valid. Shame on you. Christ taught no such thing. We are all equal at the foot of the cross. There is no respecter of persons with God.

Why not worship the God of the Bible and leave Darwin in the dust bin of history, with all the other racists and xenophobes like Hitler and Margret Sanger?

Read it again, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

[14. Ted Slater said the following at 5:02 PM on Feb 12:]

14

I've blogged before that Scripture is not compatible with the theory of evolution: "Jesus Was Not A Theistic Evolutionist."

Before you dismiss my article and tell me that you think that God used evolution to bring "all this" about, please wrestle with what I wrote there. Those interested in seeing what some creation scientists think, and what I've come to believe about the history of the earth, please see the footnote in my blog post.

FWIW, I'm surprised by all the Boundless Line readers who hold such a low view of Scripture, going so far to call it mere fable. We're either doing our job well by drawing you here, or doing our job poorly that you'd think so lowly of the Bible.

[15. Sara said the following at 5:14 PM on Feb 12:]

15

Ted, I'd say it's the first. As mentioned in the censorship thread, this is a very well-run blog.

Zillions of Christians hold what you call a 'lowly' view of scripture. Check out Canada's church, the United Church of Canada; and liberal Anglicans, and some Quakers, and on and on... Instead of 'lowly', they'd probably call it 'accurate', just as you call your view of the Bible accurate.

Don't say 'fable', say, 'human product of an important tradition'.

[16. farmer Tom said the following at 5:31 PM on Feb 12:]

16

FWIW, I'm surprised by all the Boundless Line readers who hold such a low view of Scripture, going so far to call it mere fable. We're either doing our job well by drawing you here, or doing our job poorly that you'd think so lowly of the Bible.

Don't be surprised. In dealing with other "christian" websites and sites where many claim the name of Christ, I am absolutely appalled at the lack of faith in the Infallibility and Inspiration of Scripture.
There are many, many posting here who have no logical basis for claiming the free gift of Salvation because at every turn they undermine, ignore or out right reject the clear teaching of the Word of God.

If God did not create the world, if Adam did not sin in the garden, and if Scripture is so unreliable that it can not be trusted, then they have no right to claim a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, since the very document which explains and shows His work of redemption is invalid for use as a source of information.

Maybe a reminder from God's Word is in order, simply claiming the name of (Christ one)Christian is not enough.

Matthew 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

If your lifestyle, your behavior and your belief system is like the world, you have got devil fruit hanging from your branches and by the standard given by Christ here indicates that you may well hear, "Depart from me,"

If your worldview, your philosophy and your authority are at odds with the God of the Universe and the letter He wrote to mankind(The Bible) you need to do some reevaluation of your belief system.

[17. JB said the following at 5:33 PM on Feb 12:]

17

Farmer Tom,

I think you're misinterpreting the title of the Origin of Species. In context, "favoured races" is talking about successful variants of a species. So, a line of finches with a specialized beak that could gain access to a new food source would be a "favoured race" of finches. The phrase doesn't imply anything about specifically human ethnic-racial distinctions (which are more cultural than genetic, anyway).

That being said, I'm sure Darwin, like many other Englishmen of his day, held some views about human races with which I would disagree. That hardly matters - the man's views about race have nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. For comparison, Martin Luther was virulently anti-Semitic. I'm still a Protestant.

[18. JB said the following at 5:44 PM on Feb 12:]

18

Ted,

I don't see your warrant for saying that Jesus spoke of certain events as fact as opposed to metaphor. For example, when he referenced Jonah, he spoke of Jonah as a "sign." When he spoke of Noah, he spoke of the Flood as a metaphor for the coming of the Messiah (one can use real events as metaphors in speech, I think). If someone takes the Genesis account as a metaphor, I don't see that these passages from Jesus clarify the issue any. They can be taken equally well as metaphor and statements of fact.

On another issue, what do you think about the provisional use of evolutionary theory as a tool for understanding the world? That is, do you think that a person could believe that the creation account is literally true, but use an evolutionary model to make sense of things like the fossil record or genetic similarities between species? It would be kind of like the way engineers use Newtonian mechanics: they know it's not how the world *really* is, but it's a useful tool for getting a job done.

[19. Josh said the following at 5:48 PM on Feb 12:]

19

Farmer Tom, have you actually read the "Origin of the Species", or did you just read the title? It's an interesting method of literary theory, although I'm not sure it will get you very far.

If you read it, or if you've taken a 6th grade biology course, you'd know that the "races" of the title are essentially what we call "species" today. "Favoured" in the sense that they survive because of beneficial traits.

But that was a nice straw man you set up anyway. Bringing in Hitler to any discussion is a great way to set up that moral high ground!

[20. Jacob Douvier said the following at 5:58 PM on Feb 12:]

20

The point of intelligent design is that there is no "chance" directing evolution, but that God is the One directing the changes
This isn't strictly true if you're talking about ID as it's being promoted even by self-proclaimed evangelicals like William Dembski. ID, even according to Dembski, acknowledges that evolutionary chance and random natural selection account for 90% of everything, and that the "intervention" of an intelligent designer (be he a supernatural entity, time-traveling scientist or extra terrestrials) is only necessary to account for the left overs: irreducibly complex systems. Because of this, ID is not anywhere close to 6-day creationism. Ironically, most evolutionists don't seem to be able to grasp this simple taxonomical distinction. 6-day Creationism is hostile to any form of macro-evolution, and ID whole-heartedly embraces it as the way of things 90-95% of the time. So while, strictly speaking, Creationism is an intelligent design theory, Intelligent Design as is being promoted by people like Dembski, is not Creationism.

I won't go into it, but there are also serious problems with the scientific method, namely, that it really isn't unique to the natural sciences, and that it is not clear if there is any difference between scientific and other "kinds" of knowledge. I strongly recommend interested parties look into some philosophy of science like Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn points out that a scientific community's paradigm determines things like what are scientific problems and the proper means of solving it. You cannot apply contemporary definitions science and its methods to past innovations and still call those past advancements (done under a discarded paradigm) science, because past scientists were practicing their craft under a different conceptual understanding of reality. The definition of science has changed and there is nothing to indicate that it won't change again.

[21. Adam said the following at 6:33 PM on Feb 12:]

21

Hey Everyone!

To speak of evidence for evolution is to contradict yourself. Evolutionary theories cannot provide the preconditions for intellegability for evidence at all.

Richard Taylor has an interesting discussion on this. He says that we are to imagine that we are on a railroad going from London to Wales. During the trip, you see rocks arranged in a certain manner so that they appear to say "The British Railroad Welcomes you to Wales." Now, you would be justified in saying that someone arranged the rocks to say such a thing. However, you would also be justified in saying that the rocks simply rolled down the hill, and formed the letters by natural weathering, even though such an explaination is highly unlikely. However, the problem is that, on such an interpretation, you would not be justified in assuming that you have information you are entering Wales from the arrangement of the rocks.

In the same way, and evolutionist might wish to say that his organs such as his eyes evolved by naturalistic processes. However, here is an important question. How then does he knows that his senses function to give him information about the external world? In other words, if the evolutionist wants to say that evolution is true, before he can give evidence of it, he must tell us why it is that we can trust that our senses have evolved in such a way that they are giving us information about the external world. There is simply no way he can answer the question without using his senses, and thus, begging the question.

Not only that, but evolution is based entirely in the concept of natural law. Natural law is based on the idea that nature has certain uniformity, such that we can expect that future actions will be like past actions. For instance, we assume that, given only a different time and place, salt will dissolve in water tomorrow just as it has today. However, what is the rational basis for accepting this regularity if you are going to be an evolutionist?

Two answers are usually given. First, some will say that we cannot know, but we can only know that very probably the future will be like the past. However, that is totally inadequate. For instance, what we are saying is that, in the past, the probablility of salt dissolving in water is 11/13. What we then have to say is that, in the future, the probability of salt dissolving in water is also 11/13. What is the problem with that? A probability judgement is necessarily a statement that the future will be like the past because we can expect uniform high probability from the past to the future. However, the whole question was "how do we know that the future is like the past?"

Indeed, for the Christian, each of these problems has simple, sunday school child answers. God has created our "eyes to see," and he has promised that "Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease." Thus, because God has created our eyes, they have purpose, and, because God has promised that he will keep nature uniform, we can trust in his promises.

How is the Creation story *not* a "just so story"?

Simple. Because, unless the Bible is inerrant, our experience is unintelligable. Logic, science, morality, our ability to trust our senses ultimately depend upon the truth of that story. Without the truth of that story, our reasoning is futile.

God Bless,
Adam

[22. Paul said the following at 6:48 PM on Feb 12:]

22

Interestingly enough. While evolution offers an interesting explanation for how life evolved to what it is. (and if you're honest and open-minded you have to admit that natural selection does indeed occur, just not at the species level), it does NOT provide an explanation for origin.

Or in other words, evolution does not explain how we came to be from nothing. It only takes up after the "Big Bang."

next time you're in a discussion with an evolutionist, bring up origin. there's no answer for it. :)

[23. k. said the following at 7:14 PM on Feb 12:]

23

farmer Tom - While Darwin was certainly a flawed product of his era, it is important to note that he hardly mentioned humans -- or race -- in Origin. Instead, he focused on variations within species, and how those variations affected their ability to survive and successfully reproduce.

There's no question that Darwin held views that are now considered racist. However, that alone doesn't invalidate the theories he advanced in Origin.

Incidentally, Darwin is not the only well-known author who expressed views we now consider repugnant. Martin Luther, in addition to his well-known theses, wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies>On the Jews and Their Lies, which is absolutely sickening. However, I don't know any Christians who cite this as a reason to throw Luther out the window, figuratively speaking.

[24. John said the following at 7:15 PM on Feb 12:]

24

"Zillions of Christians hold what you call a 'lowly' view of scripture. Check out Canada's church, the United Church of Canada; and liberal Anglicans, and some Quakers, and on and on... Instead of 'lowly', they'd probably call it 'accurate', just as you call your view of the Bible accurate."

Zillions of people who think they are christian.

Either Ted is right and they are wrong or they are right and Ted is wrong.

[25. k. said the following at 7:17 PM on Feb 12:]

25

JB - Looks like we think along similar lines. :)

[26. farmer Tom said the following at 7:33 PM on Feb 12:]

26

Josh and JB, nice try,

yes I've read it, and no you don't get a pass for playing stupid.

Origin was published in 1859, and Darwin limited most of the discussion to animals etc. But in 1871 he published The Descent of Man.
It takes the ideas in Origin to their logical conclusions in Descent. Eugenics and racism, in fact Eugenics was word coined by Darwins cousin.

Maybe you need a little light reading for the evening, and no I have not read this one.

"From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany"
Richard Weikart, Palgrave MacMillan

[27. Chris said the following at 7:34 PM on Feb 12:]

27

Paul writes:

Or in other words, evolution does not explain how we came to be from nothing. It only takes up after the "Big Bang."

next time you're in a discussion with an evolutionist, bring up origin. there's no answer for it. :)

What do you mean by "nothing"? If you mean what existed before the Big Bang, you're in the wrong field. Evolution doesn't concern itself with the Big Bang. Try physics.

If you're talking about how life came to start on the earth, there are some theories. The most interesting one that I've seen involves asteroid impacts. There was actually an experiment where scientists made up a mixture of stuff they theorized would be in the early atmosphere. They then "smashed" an "asteroid" into the mixture with a super cool rail gun. (I wish I had a link to the experiment and video. If anything, it's cool to watch people smash things with rail guns.)

What resulted from simple chemicals was not just amino acids (as expected) but peptides (if I remember correctly). Rather interesting.

Proof? No, but it's an interesting hypothesis.

(BTW, don't bother getting into the Big Bang/origin issue. Science basically admits that trying to determine was happened before the Big Bang (Planck time or epoch or something like that) cannot be described by the model.)

[28. Matthew said the following at 7:42 PM on Feb 12:]

28

Paul,

If you're speaking of the big bang and the creation of the cosmos, that's where the physicists come in and evolutionists have no bearing whatsoever (so if that's what you mean by "origins," that's irrelevant to evolution.) If you mean how molecules became RNA, DNA, and cells... there are experiments that have showed some things, but they're certainly not very convincing to me.

I would be careful of smugly bringing up "origins" the next time you talk to an evolutionist because he'll probably think that you're just trying to throw in something unnecessary.

[29. Hannah said the following at 8:02 PM on Feb 12:]

29

Out of curiosity has anyone read "Darwin's Proof" or "Darwin's God" by Cornelius Hunter. Or how about "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe?

[30. farmer Tom said the following at 8:17 PM on Feb 12:]

30

Mein Kampf

My Fight

and according to Hitler himself, this title was inspired by Darwin and The Struggle.

Again I will say, as I have on previous occasions, some of you are ignorant of history and the facts involved,

American Heritage Dictionary
ig·no·rant
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

You need to do a lot of reading on history, using critical thinking skills, instead of parroting whatever the professor told you.

[31. Chris said the following at 8:24 PM on Feb 12:]

31

Catherine writes:

The point of intelligent design is that there is no "chance" directing evolution, but that God is the One directing the changes, and if you research the evidence, it makes more sense that the changes are God-driven, not by accident (like the Cambrian explosion).

Actually, ID proponents are usually very careful to avoid any mention of God; otherwise, they basically admit that attempts to teach it in science class in public schools are attempts to instill religious beliefs in public schools. They often point out that the intelligent designer is not necessarily a deity.

That said, perhaps someone here who supports ID could explain to me the mechanism behind the intelligent designers's efforts. In other words, if you're going to say evolution is wrong and bad science, provide me with an alternative explanation. Here's what I mean.

Let's run a thought experiment to test whether or not evolution is a good model/theory. Remember that evolution and natural selection theorize that species best suited to their environments will prosper and pass on their genes to the next generation. If there is a change in the environment, the new "best suited" species should prosper. If there are small, random genetic changes over time, these will be bad, neutral, or good. Good ones will help a species prosper (and will be propagated), bad ones will hinder (and should thus not be propagated as much). Neutral ones are real interesting since at some time in the future they may be either good or bad.

In this thought experiment, we will vacate Australia of all humans and their effects except for necessary scientific equipment to monitor things like weather, seismic activity, etc. No one will be permitted to live there. Only scientists will be allowed to visit to make observations.

Over the next 50 million years in our thought experiment, scientists will catalogue every species in a yearly expedition. They'll take DNA samples, count populations, and so forth. They'll remotely monitor animals and plant life with cleverly hidden cameras, satellite photography, recon drones, etc. in order to understand migrations, herd behavior, etc.

If, indeed, evolution is a good model, the scientists should start to see things happen. In fact, they should see new species evolve. (Here we define new species as one incapable of reproducing with the old species. We will test this in our thought experiment by cloning the old and new species from our DNA retain samples and attempting to mate them.) Scientists should be able to track small, subtle, random changes over time. They should be able to correlate changes in species to both these mutations and to changes in the environment. (Plus, we'll finally settle the global warming debate!)

If you want, you can expand this thought experiment to include entire planets (both with and without pre-existing life).

Could someone please come up with a similar thought experiment that shows how an intelligent designer affects changes that evolution says are caused by changes in the environment and random mutations? I'd be particularly interested in two things: a) how would one observe the designer making these changes? and b) what type of thought experiment could be designed to examine how the designer itself was created?

Remember, it's a thought experiment, so you are not limited by time or money.

[32. Louise said the following at 9:24 PM on Feb 12:]

32

Here's another interesting Darwin fact...he was married to a member of the Wedgewood family, as in the tableware/china.

I just love trivia!

[33. Peter Wells said the following at 9:56 PM on Feb 12:]

33

Catherine: The problem with that idea is that you're still creating the 'solution' without evidence. Saying you can't find an answer so it must be God is a chimera -- you can't prove it's God, it could be anything at all, including a limitation in your own understanding. Jean Meisler covers that kind of thinking in "Superstition in All Ages".

Yes, I know. I'm an evil liberal who doesn't believe in a literal creation. Funnily enough, it doesn't seem to detract from Christ's message.

There are a lot of things I fail to grasp about Creationism, but if someone would like to enlighten me, I'm more than prepared to reconsider. I've done that on abortion and I'm prepared to do it again.

For example: Entropy. Second law of Thermodynamics, the idea that temperature wants to become uniform, basically. Eventually, Entropy will cause the universe to stop functioning, and everything will cease to exist because no work can be done. There are variations on this theme, but they all end the same way. Universe stops working.

In creationism, there are two explainations for this. First, God made Entropy as a system of His universe and therefore things aren't perfect like Genesis claimed, because His creation is actually in the process of dying.

Alternatively, Adam and Eve's Sin causes God to 'break' His perfect creation and thus creates Entropy. Which begs... a)God can change the laws of physics if he wants, so scientifically it's anything goes. What's the point in studying anything when God might change it tomorrow? b) How did anything work without Entropy? It's kind of necessary in order to make things happen. c) Adam and Eve mess up and so God decides to damn the entire universe to heat death? I don't want to question God, but it seems a little extreme. There are simpler ways to achieve the same thing, if you're God.

But there's no mention of "I'm going to destroy the universe" when God's dishing out the punishments in Genesis, so that doesn't work either.

So yeah. That there is the number one problem I have with Genesis. And it has nothing to do with evolution, specifically. Evolution is something I consider simply because Genesis makes less sense.

I'm ready to hear all arguments!

[34. Josh said the following at 11:25 PM on Feb 12:]

34

How is the Creation story *not* a "just so story"?

"Simple. Because, unless the Bible is inerrant, our experience is unintelligable. Logic, science, morality, our ability to trust our senses ultimately depend upon the truth of that story. Without the truth of that story, our reasoning is futile."

You can't honestly expect a non-Christian to accept this though. Basically you applied one epistemological criterion to junk a curiously indistinct entity you call "evolution" and then turned right around and said it doesn't apply to you! Surely intellectual honesty falls under that "do not lie" part of the Law!

Its amazing to me the twisting and turning that some creationists will do to support their view. They will look you in the eye and tell you that scientific evidence is not admissible against the Biblical record and that it doesn't matter, and then five seconds later they will try their hardest to show that science *does* support the Bible. Procrustean gymnastics at its finest.

And to anticipate another discussion I'd like to say "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ"
etc etc

[35. John D. said the following at 6:53 AM on Feb 13:]

35

Most people assume that the theory of evolution is as scientific as it gets, but remember that science is based on observation.

The only kind of evolution that has actually been observed is evolution within species (white moths on dark trees, or drug-resistant bacteria, for example). That has been observed, and can be called "science."

Evolution from one species to another has not been observed, merely guessed at. Darwin himself admitted that the fossil record was notably devoid of evidence of intermediate forms of evolving animals. Evolution between species, therefore, remains only a theory, and must be taken on (that's right) faith.

Darwinism really is a kind of alternative creation story, a kind of secular religion. It is essentially incompatible with belief in the Bible.

It may strike you as anti-rational and anti-scientific to believe that God made the world in six days, as revealed in Genesis. It is also anti-rational and anti-scientific to believe that a man who walked the earth 2,000 years ago is still alive and has any influence over our lives.

Our faith is foolishness to those who are perishing. I Cor. 2:14

[36. J.T. said the following at 8:55 AM on Feb 13:]

36

I thought Darwin Day was April 1.

(HA! HA! Get it?)

[37. Adam said the following at 8:56 AM on Feb 13:]

37

Josh,

You can't honestly expect a non-Christian to accept this though. Basically you applied one epistemological criterion to junk a curiously indistinct entity you call "evolution" and then turned right around and said it doesn't apply to you! Surely intellectual honesty falls under that "do not lie" part of the Law!

Josh, I didn't say it "doesn't apply to me," I just said that, because we derive our worldview from the Bible, we can answer the epistemological problems that I mentioned. However, the evolutionist cannot do so. He is stuck trying to understand the world without starting with the fear of the Lord, and thus, is making his experience unintelligible. Sense perception and the principle of induction are just two of the examples of that. However, if we trust in God and his promises then we have answers for those things. Thus, a worldview in which the scriptures are inerrant can account for sense perception and induction, while an evolutionary worldview cannot.

Its amazing to me the twisting and turning that some creationists will do to support their view. They will look you in the eye and tell you that scientific evidence is not admissible against the Biblical record and that it doesn't matter, and then five seconds later they will try their hardest to show that science *does* support the Bible. Procrustean gymnastics at its finest.

Josh, the problem is how do you take the evidence. That is the issue. If we do not start there, then we are not recognizing that what you will take as evidence for a particular position will be a function of your worldview. What you or I will accept as evidence for the other person's position will be a function of our entire view of reality, how we know what we know, and how we should live our lives. Thus, that does not help us one bit. We have to get down to the task of dealing with the fact that Darwinian evolution is an entire worldview. We must ask whether the evolutionary model or the Christian version of the creationist model can provide us with the preconditions for intelligability of reality. Thus, I am arguing that the proof of the truth of the scriptures is in this, that without the truth of the scriptures, you cannot prove anything. Without the truth of the Christian scriptures, sense perception, science, logic, and morality become impossible.

God Bless,
Adam

[38. Denise Morris said the following at 10:38 AM on Feb 13:]

38

Hello Friends,

I really don't have much to add to this conversation, but I will say this. I'd be careful to say that believing in Darwinian evolution leads to racism or something like Nazism. When presenting philosophical arguments, words like "leads" are very important. Yes people can misconstrue something like Darwinian evolution and use it as a means to get to their racist activities. People have said the same thing about Christianity -- people have used it to justify things like the Crusades or American slavery.

I once had a conversation with a guy who is much smarter than me about this topic. He does not believe in Darwinian evolution, but he also doesn't think that, when applied through sound, valid inference it leads to what Hitler did.

Logically, is does not imply ought.

Again, I don't know a ton about the subject, but I trust my friend who does.

All of this to say, we need to be careful when presenting arguments. We need to think logically and make sure that the same arguments we're using can't be turned against the worldview we are putting forth as the correct alternative.

I hope some of this made sense. :-)

[39. Matthew said the following at 11:58 AM on Feb 13:]

39

John D, evolution of new species has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I would recommend spending some time cruising around TalkOrigins, as they have a lot of straight-up scientific evidence that ought to be weighed.

[40. Ted Slater said the following at 12:30 PM on Feb 13:]

40

Matthew -- the Talk Origins site is quite unconvincing. The rebuttal seemed more reasonable to me than the arguments in favor of evolution given on Talk Origins.

This theory makes the most sense to me....

[41. Louise said the following at 1:26 PM on Feb 13:]

41

www.venganza.org

[42. Jethro said the following at 2:59 PM on Feb 13:]

42

Two questions:

1. For those who believe in Creationism: How do you reconcile simultaneously deriding evolution for the lack of evidence supporting it, while claiming there is sufficient evidence for creationism? Answers in Genesis and the like hardly outweigh the evidence for evolution...

2. For those who are ID'ers: how does ID prove anything about God? Demonstrate to me that the 'designer' eluded to in ID is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the pixie who lives in my garden.

[43. JB said the following at 3:05 PM on Feb 13:]

43

Ted,

I find your rebuttal unconvincing. For example, it states, "Definitions of “species” and (therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen."

On the contrary, this has been observed to happen in the species Spartina anglica which arose in the late 19th century and have been an invasive marsh grass in Western Europe ever since. There is good evidence for an increase in both the amount and quality of its genetic information as a result of allopolyploidy and subsequent mutation and selection. Macroevolution in action!

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/10/1863
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/130/4/1587.pdf

[44. farmer Tom said the following at 4:47 PM on Feb 13:]

44

Denise Morris,

Hi, Denise. I'm sure you respect your friend. He may be a very smart guy. That has nothing to do with whether or not Hitler was motivated by the ideas of Darwin. I have a friend who thinks the moon is made of green cheese and he's a really cool guy.

Marvin Olasky is very respected in Christian journalistic circles. Have you read this interview from World Magazine?

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/OlaskyHitler.php

I will continue to link Darwinian evolution and Hitler as well as Marx and the Atheistic Communism he promoted because both of those worldviews are directly opposed to the God of the Bible. They were introduced by men who rejected God and his created order in favor of a system which put man at the center. If one had evolved to the highest levels, then he was entitled to have authority over the lesser evolved humans around him. Evolutionary Darwinism is an appeal to authority based not on God's authority, but on survival of the fittest, the superiority of the favored races.

[45. Jacob Douvier said the following at 5:45 PM on Feb 13:]

45

1. For those who believe in Creationism: How do you reconcile simultaneously deriding evolution for the lack of evidence supporting it, while claiming there is sufficient evidence for creationism? Answers in Genesis and the like hardly outweigh the evidence for evolution...

It's a question of authority. Evolutionary thinking is built on presuppositions antithetical to Christianity. I do no let non-Christians tell me the rules for my own game, so why should I feel any need to play theirs? Your worldview determines what counts as evidence, what one will accept as evidence, and what counts as a reliable way of knowing. There is no neutral vantage point from which to objectively evaluate evidence. We are all committed to a worldview of some sort, and that worldview shapes and establishes the rules by which we think reality can work.

Frankly, it's not really worth my time to answer your question because you are probably not interested in any answers I or anyone else would give because you have already decided that they are wrong. It's not about evidence, it's about prior commitments.

[46. Andrew Spivack said the following at 6:18 PM on Feb 13:]

46

Oh goody, let's all hear what Tom Neven -- a gentleman with about as much scientific training as my best friend's puppy -- has to say about the science of evolution. Maybe then I -- someone who has never fired a BB gun -- can explain to the former Marine how to *properly* clean an M-16.

Tom, give it up. Seriously. Is your general assumption that no one with a scientific education above 6th grade reads this blog?? Are you really trying to sell the idea that altruism presents a problem for evolution? Come on, not even most of your creationist peers dare to trot this one out into the light of day for fear (very reasonable fear) that they'd get laughed back into the shadows.

[47. Andrew Spivack said the following at 6:35 PM on Feb 13:]

47

Farmer Tom, you may continue doing whatever you feel like doing. It is the refuge of the desperate to talk continuously about the Nazis. It simply means you cannot attack evolution on its merits (and you obviously can't), so you're sinking to the lowest possible common denominator -- Nazis. Good luck there.

By the way -- Werner Heisenberg was a Nazi. Therefore I'm assuming you don't believe in quantum mechanics either. Which, of course, means you don't use computers or any modern electronics, since solid state transistors are all based on the quantum theory. I'm correct, am I not, farmer Tom?

[48. Patricia said the following at 6:58 PM on Feb 13:]

48

I'm jumping in late here, but I just wanted to say that in my opinion, I think there can be difference of opinion on this issue amongst Christians. It seems to that what is important is to agree is the underlying messages in Geesis that affect how we as Christians view human history-ie that God created the heavens and earth, the his creation is good, Man was made in his image and given authority over creation, and original sin is the result of man's disobedience to God. Evolution only describes how biological life evolved-it does not even attempt to answer any of these questions.

[49. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:14 PM on Feb 13:]

49

Farmer Tom: I could not agree more. While all evolution supporters do not embrace the eugenic and genocidal implications of Darwin's hypothesis, it is irrefutable that the great thugs of the 20th century would not have reached their potential minus Darwin.

[50. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:37 PM on Feb 13:]

50

1. For those who believe in Creationism: How do you reconcile simultaneously deriding evolution for the lack of evidence supporting it, while claiming there is sufficient evidence for creationism? Answers in Genesis and the like hardly outweigh the evidence for evolution...

For one thing, I've never claimed that Creation was scientific, at least not in terms of its subjection to the scientific method. After all, the scientific method requires (1) observation, (2) hypothesis, (3) experimentation, and (4) analysis. In that respect, Creation is not scientific.

Neither, for that matter, is macro-evolution, the brand of evolution that is at the center of controversy. It fails because you have no experimental means to verify it. And the proposed evolutionary models simply don't fit the data.

[51. John D. said the following at 7:38 PM on Feb 13:]

51

Marxism and its cousin Nazism flow naturally from Darwinian philosophy.

If there is no Creator, if human beings are merely a few atoms that came together randomly for no reason, and there is no Lawgiver to declare and enforce absolutes of right and wrong, then nothing is right and nothing is wrong, and nothing matters.

Most people who profess belief in evolution are not willing to take their worldview to its logical conclusion: if people are only 98 cents worth of chemicals that evolved by chance, then murder is not wrong; September 11 was not wrong; the Holocaust was not wrong. Power flows from the barrel of a gun, and killing 50 million, as Mao did in China, is just the next step in evolving the species.

Most people will instinctively recoil from those statements, suggesting that there is some consciousness of absolute truth and morality in them, even if they don't recognize it.

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in [people]; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20.

Once people are led to see the utter moral bankruptcy of Darwinism, perhaps they are ready for the Gospel.

[52. Fran said the following at 7:56 PM on Feb 13:]

52

As a biologist, I agree with evolution. Evolution by definition is a gradual change over time or a quick change over time. These changes effect the genotype (genes) or phenotype (appearance). (The change in genotype will effect the next generation.) However, as a believer in Christ, I believe in Creationism by God.

[53. JB said the following at 10:53 PM on Feb 13:]

53

Jacob,

I agree with you that there is no independent standard by which worldviews may be judged. I don't think that means that worldviews must be accepted only on the basis of authority - there are some internal checks one can make - but I agree with you that from the perspective of a traditionalist Christian the scientific evidence for evolution is entirely beside the point. The problem, I think, arises when creationists don't deny the efficacy of scientific thinking for coming to knowledge about the world but instead try to argue that the scientific evidence for creationism is superior to that for evolution. While it's entirely tenable to reject scientific evidence about origins as irrelevant, presenting creationism as scientifically supported is factually wrong and a misunderstanding of the fundamental principles of empirical natural science. It just strikes me as strange that people like the Answers in Genesis folks effectively concede the scientific paradigm and try to argue within it when it would be much easier and more consistent to reject science as a way to truth altogether.

[54. JB said the following at 11:35 PM on Feb 13:]

54

Farmer Tom, Amir, and John D,

I don't understand what you're getting at with this business about Hitler. First, the theory of evolution has no moral implications at all. It's a purely descriptive theory with no normative components. The fact that the fittest species survive and supplant less fit ones does not imply that this is good. You might believe that natural selection is a good thing and you might seek to facilitate it, but this has no more to do with the theory of evolution than being a member of the NRA has to do with the chemistry of gun powder.

Second, I understand that you base your moral theory on a literal understanding of the Bible, but that doesn't mean that no other moral theories are possible. Did God need to create the world literally in six days in order to give us moral law? Your personal difficulty with the idea of morality divorced from miraculous creation does not mean that a real difficulty exists with the concept. Plato, Kant, and John Stuart Mill, for example, did not need to resort to the Genesis account to give quite coherent moral theories (which would, by the way, all preclude mass murder.)

Third, even if there were moral implications to the theory of evolution, this would have nothing to do with its correctness. You may not like the moral implications of the theory of gravity, but this doesn't count against it. The validity of a scientific theory can only be disputed on the level of empirical scientific evidence.

Fourth, it is not the case that the theory of evolution was the only possible inspiration for the Holocaust. The Inquisition and the pogroms of Eastern Europe did not need to consult the Origin of Species to generate lethal anti-Semitism, nor did Martin Luther. In fact, as a historical point, the Nazis invoked Luther's anti-Semitism repeatedly to justify the Holocaust. The clear line of ideology is seen in the demonization of Jews by the Nazis. This is an idea derived from Luther - natural selection does not require that one's genetic inferiors be despicable.

Fifth, as for Marxism, Marx's ideas about the development of production stem clearly from Hegel - who died about thirty years before the Origin of Species was published in English. Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and his Communist Manifesto were both published before he could have read Darwin's great work published in 1859. Sure, Marx apparently read Darwin before he wrote Capital, but to say that evolutionary theory was necessary to the development of Marxism is absurd.

[55. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:10 AM on Feb 14:]

55

JB says (emphasis mine): I don't understand what you're getting at with this business about Hitler. First, the theory of evolution has no moral implications at all. It's a purely descriptive theory with no normative components. The fact that the fittest species survive and supplant less fit ones does not imply that this is good. You might believe that natural selection is a good thing and you might seek to facilitate it, but this has no more to do with the theory of evolution than being a member of the NRA has to do with the chemistry of gun powder.

That is the non-sequitur of all time, JB. That it is amoral--morally neutral--only fuels its applicability by the great thugs of the last century. Their social engineering agendas were Darwinian all the way. One need not be a Biblical literalist to appreciate that fact.

JB further says: Second, I understand that you base your moral theory on a literal understanding of the Bible, but that doesn't mean that no other moral theories are possible. Did God need to create the world literally in six days in order to give us moral law? Your personal difficulty with the idea of morality divorced from miraculous creation does not mean that a real difficulty exists with the concept. Plato, Kant, and John Stuart Mill, for example, did not need to resort to the Genesis account to give quite coherent moral theories (which would, by the way, all preclude mass murder.)

Plato, Kant, and John Stuart Mill were hardly transcendent in their proposition of morality. A relativist could look at the three of them and say, "Well...that's their opinions. And they are dead. So they have no meaning to me."

The morality they propose carries no objective source. Ergo, it is meaningless. If you try to appeal to a non-transcendental basis, the nihilists will take you to the woodshed.

More from JB: Third, even if there were moral implications to the theory of evolution, this would have nothing to do with its correctness. You may not like the moral implications of the theory of gravity, but this doesn't count against it. The validity of a scientific theory can only be disputed on the level of empirical scientific evidence.

Macro-evolution fails the scientific test for the same reason that Creation does: neither have empirical proof. There is disagreement among evolutionists regarding the correct model. The best you can come up with is "lots of micro-evolution over time equals macro-evolution". Hasn't been proven empirically.

On the other hand, Behe has handed a hypothesis--Irreducible Complexity (IC)--that can be tested empirically, and which blows a gaping hole into Darwin and his successors. Take a biological system, and remove any of its base-level components. If the system loses complete functionality, then that system is irreducibly complex.

As for gravity, that is empirical, demonstrable in any number of experiments. If you wish to test it, feel free to jump off the top of Pike's Peak. I do, however, recommend a parachute, as the landing is quite a doozy.

More from JB: ourth, it is not the case that the theory of evolution was the only possible inspiration for the Holocaust. The Inquisition and the pogroms of Eastern Europe did not need to consult the Origin of Species to generate lethal anti-Semitism, nor did Martin Luther. In fact, as a historical point, the Nazis invoked Luther's anti-Semitism repeatedly to justify the Holocaust. The clear line of ideology is seen in the demonization of Jews by the Nazis. This is an idea derived from Luther - natural selection does not require that one's genetic inferiors be despicable.

No one said that Darwin was the only inspiration for the Holocaust. On the other hand, it added fuel to the fire. That is unmistakable.

While the Pogroms and the Inquisition were indeed horrible chapters in history, the numbers of deaths--in the case of the Inquisition, the annual execution rate was less than that of the state of Texas--are miniscule next to the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler.

More: Fifth, as for Marxism, Marx's ideas about the development of production stem clearly from Hegel - who died about thirty years before the Origin of Species was published in English. Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and his Communist Manifesto were both published before he could have read Darwin's great work published in 1859. Sure, Marx apparently read Darwin before he wrote Capital, but to say that evolutionary theory was necessary to the development of Marxism is absurd.

While Darwin did not inspire Marx, he sure provided the fuel for the implementation of his ideas in later generations. Minus Darwin, eugenics doesn't get to first base. Minus Darwin, the social agendas of Bolshevism, Fascism, Nazism, and even the American Progressive movement, don't carry the same weight.

[56. Paul said the following at 10:34 AM on Feb 14:]

56

By origin, I mean refuting evolutionists who use evolution to rule out the existence of a creator.

Sure you have all of this "scientific" information as to how life began (DNA, peptides, UV light). The classic Miller & Urey experiment (about how inorganics "turned on their own" into organic molecules) just doesn't ring true to me anyway. However, evolution can't answer where all of the stuff (asteroids, planets, comets) came from.

So maybe it's physics, but I don't like it when scientists (of which I'm one) tell me that I'm a fool for believing in God as a Creator because honestly, in my opinion, it takes more faith to believe that we just came here randomly.

[57. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:49 AM on Feb 14:]

57

Paul: Sure you have all of this "scientific" information as to how life began (DNA, peptides, UV light). The classic Miller & Urey experiment (about how inorganics "turned on their own" into organic molecules) just doesn't ring true to me anyway. However, evolution can't answer where all of the stuff (asteroids, planets, comets) came from.

Actually, the Miller-Urey experiment showed us very little, as the resultant products were not compatible with what we are finding was the composition of the early atmosphere.

The experiment--at best--showed that base-level eleements and compounds can combine to become organic molecules.

It does not, however, demonstrate a case for the development of an organism, which is more than molecules.

In fact, all organisms have one or more homeostatic control systems that employ the use of positive and negative feedback to regulate various parameters (pH, temperature, etc.)

As an engineering graduate, I can tell you that such systems provide an observational case for a designer, as even the simplest such systems require substantial mathematical modeling (differential equations) for accurate design.

Feedback control systems are a vital part of our lives, from thermostats, humidity control, flight control systems on aircraft, robotics, electronic regulatory devices, etc.

Those require intelligence.

If mechanical control systems require intelligence for their design, then one can reasonably infer that biological control systems--many of which are far more precise in the regulatory parameters than mechanical--are also the product of intelligence.

Dembski, the proponent of Intelligent Design, actually has an impressive mathematical model demonstrating the probability of a Designer.

Now, mind you, it does not constitute empirical evidence--hence my contention that ID is not scientific--but it is no less scientific than macro-evolution.

[58. Patricia said the following at 10:56 AM on Feb 14:]

58

This might seem obvious but it seems to me the debate is not over Christians have a "high" view of scripture but whether one has to hold a literal understanding of scripture for scripture to be inerrant. To me, it seems logically consistent to say that, for example, Psalms should be read as poetry, clearly different than a book of the Gospels, which are historical. I don't think this means I don't have a "high" or "authoritative" view of scripture. I just believe that this is how scripture was meant to be read.

[59. Jacob Douvier said the following at 10:59 AM on Feb 14:]

59

JB,
I wholeheartedly agree that there have been some pretty bad movies by creation science ministries. Some of them seem to have forgot (or never learned) the lesson we learned day one in philosophy: just because you agree with an argument's conclusion doesn't mean it's a good argument. I think the entropy argument that use to be all the rage in Creation science circles is a good example of this. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon with that argument, but now almost all of them recognize it's a bad argument.

It just strikes me as strange that people like the Answers in Genesis folks effectively concede the scientific paradigm and try to argue within it when it would be much easier and more consistent to reject science as a way to truth altogether.

I think the reason why they do not reject science altogether is because they recognize that they do not need to. The problem, however, is that rather than rethinking what science would be like based on a Biblical worldview, they seek to play by the rules of what is called science by a group of people who, largely, hold antithetical beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality. It's not a question of who is being scientific and who is not so much as what is science and who gets to decided: Naturalists or supernaturalists.

[60. JB said the following at 2:30 PM on Feb 14:]

60

Jacob,

That's an interesting point. What do you think would be the characteristics of a science based more on biblical principles?

I think a lot of scientists, and especially the new crop of militant atheists, have taken the untenable position that science is a way to knowledge about the world in an ontological sense. And even worse are the people who try to use science as a normative principle. I think properly understood, empirical natural science is a self-contained system which is intelligible within itself but which can make no claims about how the world "really" is. It can give us a mathematical model for an atom which allows us to make a nuclear power plant, but it can't tell us anything about what atoms really are like and it certainly can't tell us whether or not we should invest in nuclear power. People like Richard Dawkins seem to believe that nothing is true unless it can be proven scientifically, not realizing that this position is self-contradictory.

So when I say that I "believe in" evolution, I really mean something like, "I think that the theory of evolution does a better job making sense of our observations about the natural world than any competing scientific theory." An atheist biologist and a creationist who believes that creation is such that it appears to have evolved can both be evolutionists in the same sense. Maybe if this debate were carried out on the level of, "Which model best describes the world as we see it?" rather than, "How was the world really created?" we could diffuse a lot of the theological angst that surrounds this issue.

[61. Chris said the following at 2:31 PM on Feb 14:]

61

Amir writes:

On the other hand, Behe has handed a hypothesis--Irreducible Complexity (IC)--that can be tested empirically, and which blows a gaping hole into Darwin and his successors. Take a biological system, and remove any of its base-level components. If the system loses complete functionality, then that system is irreducibly complex.

This is a definition of irreducible complexity, not a test that "blows a gaping hole" in evolution. Look up references to the infamous Dover trial, and you'll see how poor a model/theory IC is.

[62. JB said the following at 2:47 PM on Feb 14:]

62

Amir,

Perhaps we have some common ground. Take eugenics for instance. This was a practice which was undoubtedly wrong and which was promoted by people who read a lot of Darwin and got the idea into their heads that they could improve the gene pool. So I think it would be fair to say that the theory of evolution influenced the practice of eugenics.

However, I don't think that the theory of evolution necessarily implies eugenics or is wholly responsible for the practice. Darwinian evolution says that less fit members of a species will not reproduce and will not pass on their genes, but it does not say that this is a good or bad thing or that the process should be facilitated or impeded. It is amoral, yes, but amoral in the same sense that gravity is amoral i.e., a scientific theory on its own has no moral import, not that it denies the possibility of morality. Furthermore, eugenics also occurred within a society which already devalued the mentally and physically disabled. It could never have gained traction if this were not the case.

Similarly, the link between evolutionary theory and Nazism and Marxism is, I think, little more than a matter of historical interest. One who believes in evolution need not go down those paths, and if s/he does it's due to other influences. And neither Nazism nor Marxism needed evolution, either, as both had firm foundations in other ideologies.

In any case, I am genuinely confused - what is the import to this argument linking evolution to Nazism? Are we to reject a theory if some people who believe it do bad things?

[63. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:24 PM on Feb 14:]

63

Chris writes: This is a definition of irreducible complexity, not a test that "blows a gaping hole" in evolution. Look up references to the infamous Dover trial, and you'll see how poor a model/theory IC is.

Sure it blows gaping holes into evolution. Here is why: it sends evolutionary biologists back to the drawing board.

Evolutionists are under substantial pressure to provide models that describe the data, which include the fossil record. IC threatens that, because it provides a case for systems that may not have evolved from base-level elements. That does throw a loop into macro-evolution.

While many fundies have jumped onto the IC bandwagon, it is NOT a proof for ID. It may provide a framework that enhances Dembski's mathematical model, but it does not PROVE a designer.

It does, however, threaten the efficacy of many evolutionary models.

[64. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:39 PM on Feb 14:]

64

JB writes: However, I don't think that the theory of evolution necessarily implies eugenics or is wholly responsible for the practice. Darwinian evolution says that less fit members of a species will not reproduce and will not pass on their genes, but it does not say that this is a good or bad thing or that the process should be facilitated or impeded. It is amoral, yes, but amoral in the same sense that gravity is amoral i.e., a scientific theory on its own has no moral import, not that it denies the possibility of morality. Furthermore, eugenics also occurred within a society which already devalued the mentally and physically disabled. It could never have gained traction if this were not the case.

Darwin's views--or lack thereof--with respect to eugenics--are moot. That Utopian social engineers--in the scientific, educational, and governmental realms--have attached to Darwin's ideas to create a "Master Race" or a "New Man" or to remodel society according to a grand plan using a racialist or other social agenda, is quite noteworthy. Fact is, the worst murderers of all time were quite Darwinian in their approach.

More from JB: Similarly, the link between evolutionary theory and Nazism and Marxism is, I think, little more than a matter of historical interest.

It's not just evolution linked to Marxism or Nazism. It's evolution linked to Utopian social agendas. In this case, we are talking Nazism and Communism. We could also throw fascism and its more benign American variants, going back to the Progressive movement, which was in fact quite complementary of Nazism and Italian Fascism at the time.

One who believes in evolution need not go down those paths, and if s/he does it's due to other influences.

That may be true logically, but not empirically. Vox Day demonstrates this quite decisively in The Irrational Atheist. If you think this is merely about Hitler and Stalin, you are mistaken.

And neither Nazism nor Marxism needed evolution, either, as both had firm foundations in other ideologies.

But without Social Darwinism, they would not have had their impetus. At the time, Fascism was all the rave, even here in the United States. Our academics praised Hitler, Mussolini, and even Lenin and Stalin. The social engineering components were Darwinism all the way, and our intelligentsia--from John Dewey to Woodrow Wilson--praised it.

In hindsight, we loathe Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin, but remember we are using hindsight. Back in the early part of the 20th century, fascism and other Utopian experiments did not have the evil connotations that they have today.

[65. Jacob Douvier said the following at 6:41 PM on Feb 14:]

65

That's an interesting point. What do you think would be the characteristics of a science based more on biblical principles?

JB,
I'm still thinking about this. I've had some of the separate pieces of this idea rolling around in my head since I took philosophy of science junior year of college, but I've only recently put them together like so. At this point, I'm not exactly sure what it would look like. I have some friends who are much more scientifically minded than I am, and I'm hoping to have some good conversations with them on the subject.

Maybe if this debate were carried out on the level of, "Which model best describes the world as we see it?" rather than, "How was the world really created?" we could diffuse a lot of the theological angst that surrounds this issue.

I do think asking, "what theory best fits the world as I see it," would be a better question to ask. I don't know how much "theological angst" it would diffuse (maybe you could elaborate?). I know for myself and many others, making Genesis symbolic and not literal undermines the idea of original sin and death entering the world because of sin. Since man's hopeless, sinful condition is why Christ died for our sins, by extension, you could say that denying the historicity of Genesis undermines the Gospel itself. I understand that there are counters to this concern, but I think it's helpful to make note of this.

[66. Chris said the following at 7:21 PM on Feb 14:]

66

JB hits the nail on the head with:

Maybe if this debate were carried out on the level of, "Which model best describes the world as we see it?" rather than, "How was the world really created?" we could diffuse a lot of the theological angst that surrounds this issue.

This, I think, is the major point. Theories are *models* that one can use to describe how the world works or why we observe what we observe. Models have value in that they can be used to predict things. Stephen Hawking does a good job of explaining this.

[67. farmer Tom said the following at 7:53 PM on Feb 14:]

67

In any case, I am genuinely confused - what is the import to this argument linking evolution to Nazism? Are we to reject a theory if some people who believe it do bad things?

JB an excellent question and in reality the most important question in the whole evolution discussion.

My friend Dennis says, "Ideas have consequences". If you believe that you can stick you hand into a burning flame without it causing you pain, then you are free to put your hand into the flame. But if you believe that flesh will burn, that the pain involved is not pleasant, you will do your best to avoid putting your hand anywhere near an open flame, fire or even anything hot. "Ideas have consequences".

If your idea of a man is simply a collection of chemicals, randomly mixed, simply a happenstance of time and chance. You hold to the idea that this same man is nothing more than an evolved monkey, a glorified earthworm, a mutated squirrel, acted upon by circumstance, environment, and relationships. Then those ideas have consequences.

If you believe that man is as I described above, then the natural result of that belief is a glorified animal with no soul, no special features different than the other animals in the universe. Our rights come from the superiority of power, genetics and location. There is no "imago dei" (Image of God). Man is worth nothing more than the value of the chemicals and minerals from which he is formed.

And therefore there is no logical reason that I as a superior human can not use my power and intellect to exterminate, destroy, eliminate the inferior, lesser humans around me. I am the fittest, I control my destiny, I am unaccountable to anyone who is not my superior therefore I am my own god.

Materialistic evolutionary uniformitarianism
denies, and in fact outright rejects the concept of a Creator God. You are appalled by the association of Nazism and Marxism with evolution because those policical systems are evil. Yet those political systems are built on a foundation of evolutionary uniformitarianism. Both systems hated and tried to remove the very concept of God from their belief system. Both systems valued man for nothing more than what he could do for the "system". By removing all of the "inferior" groups within those systems they were actively seeking to "improve" the system. Survival of the fittest etc.

Those belief systems build upon the concept of evolutionary uniformatarianism are not compatible with the Bible. The Bible tells of a Creator God making mankind in His own image. Man becomes a living soul. Man is more than an animal because he is make in God image. He has a soul. Then the rest of the Book tells how man can fix his broken relationship with that Creator God. If man is not a sinful being, a result of Adam's fall, then there is no need of a Savior, no need for Jesus Christ to die on Calvary's cross, no need for the Resurrection, no need for us to live in a manner which pleases that Creator.

"Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" Judges 21:25 will be the pattern for living since there is no Righteous Judge who will judge the Living and the Dead. We are no long accountable before the Creator for "thou shalt not", since there is no Creator.

Ideas have consequences JB, acceptance of evolution means a rejection of the God of the Bible. Evolutionary uniformitarianism is not compatible with Biblical principle.

[68. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:10 AM on Feb 15:]

68

Chris says: This, I think, is the major point. Theories are *models* that one can use to describe how the world works or why we observe what we observe. Models have value in that they can be used to predict things. Stephen Hawking does a good job of explaining this.

That depends on the efficacy of the model itself.

In engineering, for example, mathematical models can depict behavior of systems quite well, because we are dealing with systems that humans actually designed and therefore mathematically understand. Examples include flight simulators, and CAD/CAM/CAE applications. As an aeronautical engineering graduate, I have a great appreciation for such applications.

On the other hand, econometric models are not quite as effective, as those involve many variables that are indeterminate. As the old saying goes, where you get three economists, you can get six opinions...

With respect to macro-evolution, none of the models have shown an efficacy with respect to prediction. The best that the evolutionist can provide is a model that could fit with historical data. Predictive models, on the other hand, have been quite elusive.

Demonstrating that scenarios are mathematically possible is not the same as experimentally demonstrating them.

Evolutionary models are a lot like financial/econometric models: past performance does not equate to future results.

[69. JB said the following at 11:14 AM on Feb 15:]

69

Amir,

The Straussians argue that the idea that the pursuit of utopia trends towards totalitarianism can be found as far back as Plato's Republic. I don't argue that the Nazis were utopians of a sort, but what I think is relevant is that the connection between Darwin and Hitler is entirely non-unique. Neither his antisemitism nor his utopianism required the theory of evolution. Evolution is just a description of the natural world. In order to get a horrible political movement out of it, you need to utilize political ideologies.

I also don't know what you mean when you say that logically evolution need not be connected with totalitarianism but it empirically is. Do you mean that evolutionists are empirically totalitarian? At my university we have lots of biologists, whole buildings full of them, and I have yet to meet one who's a Nazi. Or do you mean that totalitarians necessarily believe in evolution? I don't know why this should be the case and plenty of atrocities were committed in the world prior to 1859.

[70. JB said the following at 11:24 AM on Feb 15:]

70

Jacob,

I think that one could potentially see the Genesis account as a literal, historical one and still use evolutionary theory as a model. In this case, evolution would be a useful fiction. A biologist, for example, might wish to use the theory of evolution in order to predict some biochemical similarities between a known and an unknown species.

[71. JB said the following at 11:38 AM on Feb 15:]

71

Farmer Tom,

Thanks for your reply. I have a couple responses:

First, I appreciate your critique of strict materialism, and I share your view there, but I don't think that the critique is unique to evolution. Aristophanes mocked materialism in The Clouds, millennia before Darwin's birth. I don't think ditching Darwin would do in strict materialism.

Second, I don't think that strict materialism is a necessary consequence of believing in the theory of evolution. The mechanism of our creation is fairly unimportant, I think. Why should my having a soul be dependent upon whether creation happened in six days or six billion years? It seems a tangential issue to me. Just as you can acknowledge that you are made of water, carbon, and a few other elements at the same time you believe you have a soul, I can believe that my genes are derived from some lower animal at the same time I acknowledge that my nature is not merely animal. Plenty of people who believe in evolution maintain this idea without tension. The mistake comes when people believe that if science describes the world, then only things which science can prove are real. I would reject that idea.

Third, the problem of morality, I think, is not unique to evolution. There were nihilists before there were biologists. In any case, there are secular sources of morality that even a nonbeliever can acknowledge. I personally like Kant - you can use a Kantian morality whether you believe that our a priori moral principles come from God or from epiphenomenal rationality. I think there are very few people who truly believe that because of evolution the only moral principle is power. We call those people sociopaths, and I think what is wrong with them is more biological than ideological.

[72. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:11 PM on Feb 15:]

72

JB Says: I also don't know what you mean when you say that logically evolution need not be connected with totalitarianism but it empirically is. Do you mean that evolutionists are empirically totalitarian?

No. Every attempt to implement Utopian social agendas has been VERY connected to Darwin. All Darwinists are not Utopians; almost all Utopians have proven to be Darwinists.

Every major Utopian attempt--eugenics and all--in the last century has been a product of the application of Darwinism to social policy. As I was saying, when these efforts were going on, our academic elite praised them.

It is only now--post WWII--that we look upon those efforts with disdain. But back then, even WEB DuBois was quite complementary of Lenin and Hitler and Mussolini. John Dewey was very enthusiastic about them, too.

And with respect to World War I, the American Progressive movement was neoconservatism on steroids. And Wilson's crackdowns on dissent against the war? He made McCarthy look like a Civil Libertarian. In fact, even Clarence Darrow--Mr. Civil Libertarian--was on Wilson's side.

Back then, fascism was looked at in terms of evolutionary progress.

Part of the upshot of all of this is to beware of what you call "progress".

[73. Chris said the following at 5:02 PM on Feb 15:]

73

Amir writes:

Sure it blows gaping holes into evolution. Here is why: it sends evolutionary biologists back to the drawing board.

Evolutionists are under substantial pressure to provide models that describe the data, which include the fossil record. IC threatens that, because it provides a case for systems that may not have evolved from base-level elements. That does throw a loop into macro-evolution.

I'm sorry, but IC is a very poor argument against evolution. I think this thread has grown long enough that it's not productive to go into the details; however, the Dover case provides some good information:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science

Check somewhere around the pages starting in the 70s and you'll find several references to Behe and how IC has been discredited.

[74. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:29 PM on Feb 15:]

74

Chris: I am very familiar with the arguments surrounding IC, the Dover case in particular. From a scientific standpoint, IC has hardly been discredited because it has not been tested even though it is very testable.

And no, neither mathematical models--nor the pontifications of a federal judge--count as legitimate "tests".

To discredit a falsifiable hypothesis requires the scientific method.

The practice of science requires the scientific method, which involves (a) observation, (b) hypothesis, (c) experimentation, and (d) analysis. If you lack any of those 4--especially the third item--then you are engaging in reason, but not science.

IC doesn't refute evolution; it does, however, blow gaping holes into existing evolutionary models. It would force evolutionists to revise their models, or throw them out and develop new ones.

The premise that a system could be irreducibly complex is indeed a huge blow to existing macro-evolutionary models.

Homeostatic controls--that employ negative feedback for regulative functions, are indeed problematic to Darwin's disciples.