Question Evolution

Evolution is dancing on the Titanic.

The current evolution/creation controversy is based on two fundamental errors. First, the issue is cast as a conflict between the indisputable facts of science and the dogmatic faith of religious fundamentalists. Second, two entirely different definitions of science are used interchangeably, obscuring the true nature of the discussion.

Facts vs. Faith

Douglas Futuyma opens Science on Trial, his compelling polemic against creationism, with these words: "Fifty-seven years after the Scopes trial, fundamentalist religion and evolutionary biology are again fiercely at odds, and science is still on trial." Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc., 1983), p. 4.

Futuyma's words echo the sentiments of the academic rank and file: Creationists are obscurantist flat-earthers whose commitment to superstition keeps them in darkness. The verdict of science is clear. Darwinian evolution is an indisputable fact.

This characterization is simply false.

Following the complete failure of the Origin of Life Conference in Berkeley in the late 80's to produce a plausible scenario for how life itself chemically evolved, Dr. Robert Shapiro wrote a book entitled Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. ("Creation" here refers to biochemical evolution.) Shapiro is an educated skeptic, an eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field. In his book he decimates the reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life.

Michael Denton wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis to show that the original scientific objections to evolution that faced Darwin--and were argued powerfully by his contemporaries--still apply after more than 100 years of scientific research and progress.

Both of these books were written by non-religious people raising scientific objections to evolution. Shapiro remains an evolutionist, hoping that the future will turn up more evidence for biochemical evolution than the past has been able to produce. Denton ends his analysis with this statement: "The Darwinian theory is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century," and then adds, "like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced."

You have no friends of religion here. These men are inside of the established scientific community, not outside of it. Yet each offers scientifically rigorous and compelling arguments against the idea that known natural processes are adequate to explain the biological complexity of our world.

Michael Behe is a cellular biologist with impeccable credentials. In his book Darwin's Black Box, he shows that the irreducible complexity of life can't be explained by Darwinian gradualism.

James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.  James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.

Niles Eldridge, one of the world's leading experts in vertebrate fossils, describes the actual situation paleontologists face:

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."  Niles Eldridge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995), p. 95.

This problem is so severe it has spawned an entirely new school of evolutionary thinking--punctuated equilibrium, championed by Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould. It's also spawned a bitter feud between Gould's camp and traditional Darwinists like Richard Dawkins who still hold to gradualism in spite of the paucity of fossil evidence for it.

Phillip Johnson has made a fair observation when he states, "If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confused to be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say that evolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions and counterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting that grand-scale evolution may rest on something less impressive than rock-solid, unimpeachable fact."

We are within our rights to question the stability of the entire enterprise. But the minute we do, we run into a second problem.

Two Faces of Science

Science has two definitions. The first is the most well known. Science is about a methodology--observation, experimentation, testing, etc.--that allows researchers to discover the facts about the world. Presumably, this is what evolution is about--the facts of science. Science in this sense has prompted the litany of concerns expressed above by evolutionists.

The second definition of science involves the philosophy of naturalistic materialism: matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that doesn't conform to this definition is not scientific.

These two definitions are not always compatible. Evolution is a case in point. At first blush it seems like evolution is about scientific facts. But when facts suggest design, the second definition is invoked. The philosophy always trumps the methodology. That is, any scientific methodology (first definition) that supports intelligent design is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition) as "religion disguised as science."

Futuyma says, "Where science insists on material, mechanistic causes that can be understood by physics and chemistry, the literal believer in Genesis invokes unknowable supernatural forces." Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc., 1983), p. 12

Creationists claim, however, that these forces are knowable, at least in principle. Consider this analogy. When a dead body is discovered, an impartial investigation of the scene might indicate foul play and not accident. In the same way, evidence could, in principle, indicate an agent in creation rather than chance. This is not faith vs. evidence, but evidence vs. evidence.

Notice how Futuyma conflates these definitions in the following statement taken from Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, the most widely used college evolutionary textbook:

The fact is, in a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for supernatural special creation. Belief in special creation must rest on faith, on the authority of the Bible and its most literal interpreters. The fundamental conflict, then, is between two incompatible ways to knowledge. Science emphasizes evidence and logical deduction, and is forever uncertain. It deals not with irrefutable facts engraved on stone tablets, but with hypotheses that may be refuted by tomorrow's experiments and concepts formulated by fallible human minds. The best scientific education encourages skepticism, questioning, independent thought, and the use of reason."  Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc., 1983), p. 18

How does Douglas Futuyma know in advance there "can be no evidence for supernatural special creation"? Because it's stipulated by definition. Even if evidence is available, it cannot be allowed. Further, no independent thought regarding the fact of evolution (as opposed to the method of evolution) is allowed either, in spite of Futuyma's assertions to the contrary. Any denial of evolution is simply not "science."

Darwinism as Dogma

Clearly, the paradigm is paramount and everything must be done to save it. Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin is very candid about this fact. In The New York Review of Books he makes this remarkable admission:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.[6] [emphasis in the original]

Here Richard Lewontin, distinguished Harvard Genetics Professor, admits that the apparatus of science is not geared to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, but rather to produce philosophically acceptable answers.

Phillip Johnson sums it up: "The reason for opposition to scientific accounts of our origins, according to Lewontin, is not that people are ignorant of facts, but that they have not learned to think from the right starting point."

Presumed Guilty

Once one presumes evolution, many of the pieces seem to fit. If you simply presume someone associated with a crime is guilty, you're bound to find some pieces of evidence that appear incriminating. But if your suspect produces an airtight alibi, you must rework your presumptions.

In the same way, Darwinism has fatal flaws, in spite of some circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. The mechanism (natural selection) is not adequate to do the work it needs to do. Behe and others have made this clear. The gradualist pathways from one transition to another cannot be reconstructed, as Gould has pointed out. Robert Shapiro of NYU admits there is no current evidence that life could come from non-life. Paleontologists can compare fossils all they want, but if evolutionary processes cannot even produce the most basic amino acid sequences necessary for life, then the game can't even get started.

To label creationist efforts as "religious zealots conducting stealth campaigns," as one editorial did, skirts the issue entirely. It is easier to dismiss any objections to evolution as flat-earth religion than to intelligently and fairly engage the facts in public discourse.

Three Errors

The view that "religious" theories should not intrude in science is guilty of a several of logical errors.

First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models might have some factual support. We see the blending, for example, in near-death experience (NDE) research, or conclusions about the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology.

Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no use of scientific methods. This is not the case. Creationists are happy to present an abundance of scientific evidence for their view, if they're allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have metaphysical significance. If evolutionary naturalism is true, the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

Read This Book!

I want to recommend a book that gets right to the heart of this issue in a clear and accessible way. It's called An Easy-to-Understand Guide for Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip Johnson.

You'll get first-rate advice on how to be a player in this discussion without getting bogged down in unnecessary details. You don't need a technical background, just a simple game plan. It's an easy read and a powerful tool that will help you expose the real issue in this debate.

The evolution/creation controversy is not about evidence. It's about the power of an academic elite to enforce a philosophy. This fact is becoming increasingly obvious to the public. Once this becomes clear, then evolution will have to stand on its own merits and it won't be able to do so.

Evolutionists are dancing on the Titanic. If it were not for philosophical strong-arming in the field of science, Darwinism would have become an historical curiosity long ago. It's only a matter of time before the iceberg hits.

Comments

[ToNy]

>> "Thats true Louis. It's just as silly as the idea of God writing a book."

i admit - for the first time on this blog

i lold

[Bennett]

Josh,

I think you're pretending to be more baffled by this than you really are. There's no inconsistency, and as a learned person you're very well aware why.

[Brad B]

Hi Jumper, you ask:

"Do either of you conclude that supernatural causes are involved when I drop a ball and it falls to earth? Why?"

I'm thinking that you have some point in asking this question this way, and will tell you what I think, but I want to know if you are going to attempt to justify knowledge or account for the preconditions for knowledge. As it is, or unless you are the first to do this, naturalists assume knowledge while standing on the shoulders of those who do have justification and then disrespect them. I am not inclined be your huckleberry without some form of serious questioning of presuppositions[I hold that requirement on myself also]. I hope you will allow yourself to be that vulernable.

The Bible tells us that God upholds all things, that nothing happens without His knowledge, and even the hairs on a head are numbered and that birds are fed at His disposition. Gravity is what we call the force that causes a ball to fall to earth. Gravity is a thing, thus upheld by God. So, the mediated cause of the ball falling is gravity, but ultimately by the immediate cause God.

[SteveK]

Jumper,

I dont understand what you mean by the rational method so if you could describe it that would help me - apologies.

Thinking through a problem.

What I would say is that there must be, philosophically, a difference between reality ("it's essential nature") and the reality we see - i.e. observational reality.

If I am reading you right - and I'm not certain that I am - I would agree. But because there is only one reality, I would say that the difference is a real and objective difference.

Other than that I'm not sure what you are getting at with this statement. Please elaborate.

[Daron]

"My only hope is that you try to search out what you believe that you haven't put to the fire of skepticism and be honest. Even if it's scary."

[Josh Stewart]

It's more complicated than that, but it would be better to have coffee and chat than for me to continue.

[Brad B]

I was reading this tonight from Vincent Cheung's Ultimate Questions 2010

"Some theologians agree that John's prologue at least hints at this epistemology. As Ronald Nash writes: After John describes Jesus as the cosmological Logos, he presents Him as the epistemological Logos. John declares that Christ was"the true light that enlightens every man" (John 1:9). In other words, the epistemological Logos is not only the mediator of divine special revelation (John 1:14), He is also the ground of all human knowledge. Several of the early church fathers also taught this view: "On the basis of John 1:9, Justin Martyr argued that every apprehension of truth (whether by believer or unbeliever) is made possible because men are related to the Logos." Every person depends on Christ for his knowledge and thinking. Believers admit it; unbelievers do not."

[RonH]

Brad B,

You wanted to know how evolution accounts for some thing - call it X.

A given model - call it M - accounts for something by predicting, implying, or raising the likelihood of X as opposed to not-X or being neutral.

RonH

[Louis Kuhelj]

Jumper

"a difference between reality ("it's essential nature") and the reality we see - i.e. observational reality."

Reality includes observation of things that you cannot see with your eyes. For example, can you see your thoughts with your eyes? Yet, you are aware of them and actually cannot be mistaken at any given moment about what you are thinking. You do observe your own thoughts, but it is not through the organs that materialism forces you to reduce your perception to...your eyes.

[Louis Kuhelj]

RonH

"He scoffs at one medium of communication because it's modern."

If I scoff at it, it is at the notion that it (YouTube) was around three thousand years ago. The message needed to get out then, not now and in a medium that would be around for that long. So, it seems to me that once again, God was using a medium that accomplished its task far better in long run. On the basis of this fact, YouTube is in fact an inferior medium for God's purpose and it is not because it is "Modern". It is because it has not been around long enough to make the kind of impact that the penned word has. Furthermore, you cannot squeeze all the books into the limits imposed on users with YouTube and for all these reasons, YouTube is inferior and no label of "Modern" makes it any more marketable to the discerning consumer who doesn't buy every bit of nonsense passing the lips of a salesman.

[RonH]

Louis Kuhelj,

Was your last really for me?

RonH

[Louis Kuhelj]

Sorry RonH

That was supposed to be a response for Josh. My bad.

[Brad B]

Hi RonH, I still think that the word account is the issue. Induction by any other description or name is still a logical fallacy and just cannot be said to account for anything. Also, although you seem to be saying that the theory of evolution is consistent with what you see, therefore evolution accounts for X, it is also similarly invalid reasoning as well as being circular. If Evolution were a self attesting and internally coherent, the charge of circular reasoning would be baseless, but since evolution is neither, the charge stands that it cannot account / ground / justify anything.

[Jumper]

So to reply to various posts:

Bennett

A poor use of language on my part, perhaps. To answer the question "what makes the object fall to earth", do we need to invoke the supernatural to answer the question?

BradB

"Gravity is a thing, thus upheld by God" So even if there is a natural explanation, you explain that natural explanation using the supernatural. And you know that is correct because scripture tells you so? And you know scripture is correct because....? Why? Do correct me where I'm wrong. Your knowledge rests on some foundation does it not? If you see God everywhere you will explain nothing.

Steve K (and Brad) - here's what Im getting at:

If you are investigating phenomena, you are doing science. If you are doing science, you have to assume methodological naturalism. The reason for that isn't because people doing science have all ganged up against god(s) or don't like gods or reject god(s). The entire point of basing science on methodological naturalism is to avoid the unnecessary implications of metaphysical terms like "truth" and "reality" - things which cannot be demonstrated by science due to its nature of inquiry. Science being the "truth" can be viewed as a reasonable statement only if you're using it in a basic logical sense, where a proposition can be said to be true if it is consistent with our other observations. Obviously this kind of "truth" is not one that is discovered, but rather constructed.
The power of the scientific method is that regardless of what kind of metaphysical reality ("it's essential nature") that is out there, it will still work. In other words, the "truth" that we uncover with science will be the same, no matter what the actual truth is.
After all - how can you tell the difference between a natural cause that we don't understand yet versus a supernatural one?

Louis

"Reality includes observation of things that you cannot see with your eyes." Indirectly counts.

"For example, can you see your thoughts with your eyes?" Yes - Electroencephalography. See (all of) the above.

"you are aware of them and actually cannot be mistaken at any given moment about what you are thinking." Yes, people can delude them self. Would you like me cite the papers?

BradB

Why is inductive reasoning a logical fallacy? Are you going to stick your hand in the fire again to check that its hot? Or is induction useful? Yet again you amuse by typing on a phone/computer to communicate globally by attacking a philosophical premise upon which science is based. Yes its impossible to justify induction. But science makes no truth claims. So who cares? Ergo - your computer/phone works.

[Brad B]

Hi jumper quite few truth claims coming from someone who maintains no truthis are being claimed. You are mistaken about my stance regarding science. I don't have to limit the scope of investigation to natural causes, and the only reason you do is because of the philosophical presuppositions you bring as you suppress the truth. Your hijacking of the realm of scientific discovery is being challenged, not the usefulness of what can be reasonably expected in its conclusions.

Btw, Induction is a logical fallacy, look it up. Even grounding knowledge in God doesn't rescue the scientific method from its logical challenge. Einstein honestly stated that [loose paraphrase] "all we have are approximations, we really know nothing at all", but Jumper wants to buck Albert and claim more than the disclipline can deliver.

Like I said, I'd be your huckleberry if you'll confront your unproved presuppositions, if not it will go on like it is.

[Brad B]

Oh, and btw, grounding immediate causes in the biblical revelation is in no way illogical, your system cant do that, and you have the nerve to charge Christians as irrational or unreasonable?

[Jumper]

BradB

I have made no truth claims. Point them out if I have.

Science makes no truth claims.

Inductive reasoning is not a logical fallacy. Its just logically unjustified. There's a difference.

"I don't have to limit the scope of investigation to natural causes" If you are doing science, you do.

"the only reason you do is because of the philosophical presuppositions you bring as you suppress the truth."
No - if you are saying science investigates the supernatural, then tell me how you would set up an experiment to differentiate between the natural and the supernatural. If you are after the truth, don't do science. 'Albert' says the same thing.

"you have the nerve to charge Christians as irrational or unreasonable?"
When did I say that?

[Jumper]

"if you'll confront your unproved presuppositions, if not it will go on like it is."
And when are you going to confront yours? I know that science rests on axioms - I've said so before. Any system of obtaining knowledge does. Even your religion.

[Brad B]

Hi Jumper, after reading through the recent responses, I have read into your posts things not there. I'll try to stay more focused and precise in what I want to convey, sorry for the confusion.

Most of what was said I stand by even if it was misdirected. Hopefully we can overcome my previous misfirings and not go so far and wide.

I'll go back to your original point, I'm sure some of this will come back up again.

You've asked

" then tell me how you would set up an experiment to differentiate between the natural and the supernatural"

First of all, I wouldn't set up an experiment if I wanted to actually know something. I have to ask you similarly: How would you know{?}, being that you've previously limited the scope of what can be investigated and also admitted that you cant know what is real. How did you come to believe that the natural is really even just natural in the first place? This is an unjustified assumption.

I previously told you that if logical necessity pointed to a suspension in the natural order, I'd infer a supernatural cause, this would also include reasoning from the impossibility of the contrary to infer epestimic justification for something not accounted for otherwise. Or, the biblical revelation providing necessary information that informs me of what IS, so I dont have to rely on induction or just plain faulty human reasoning.

[Bennett]

Jumper,

It wasn't a poor use of language on your part, there are several kinds of cause, and they don't mutually exclude one another. When you ask whether I need to invoke a supernatural cause to explain why you dropped a ball and it fell, which kind of cause do you mean?

[Jumper]

I'm talking about the phenomena of balls falling to earth when dropped. Do you need to use the supernatural to explain that phenomena? If so, why?
If you want to couch it in terms of cause that's fine, but that was the question I meant to ask.

[Bennett]

Jumper,

Post-droppage, balls fall to earth due to the pull of gravity. Gravity is, by definition, a natural force.

So are you asking me whether I invoke the supernatural to explain a natural force? The question seems a little oddball.

Now, if you ask me whether I involve anything other than the 4 (or now three) identified quantum forces in that process, I'd say yes. After all, someone had to pick the ball up in the first place.

If you found someone dead with 18 puncture wounds to their chest and a blood knife beside them, would you ask the coroner to list it as "Natural causes"?

We may have a difference as to just what qualifies as "natural" (as opposed to, for example, artificial, or deliberate), and how you define the term "supernatural".

[Louis Kuhelj]

Jumper Thanks for responding.

""Reality includes observation of things that you cannot see with your eyes." Indirectly counts.
RECAP:
"For example, can you see your thoughts with your eyes?" Yes - Electroencephalography. See (all of) the above.

"you are aware of them and actually cannot be mistaken at any given moment about what you are thinking." Yes, people can delude them self. Would you like me cite the papers?"

There is no indirectly when it comes to relying on your five senses for observation. Materialistic naturalism plus empiricism denies alternative means of awareness of very real things such as thoughts that have no material ontology.

Electroencephalography has no access to your individual thoughts and assuming that those graphs represent them, is assuming your conclusion and you are clever enough to know what fallacy that is.

Furthermore, even deluded individuals cannot be mistaken about what they are thinking at any given moment, they are only mistaken about what they believe. So, your response on the issue of being mistaken about what you are thinking completely misses my point. I appreciate your attempt at trying to explain your position and am sympathetic with the difficulties and frustration that can bring when there are serious problems with it. It is because of these very serious problems that I remain unconvinced that they reflect reality.