Stand to Reason Blog

Yes, the Evolutionary Process Does Depend on Randomness

Atheists will often assert that evolution is not random. (In fact, I was having this conversation just last night!) This is true if we’re talking about the natural selection part of the process, but natural selection can only select from what already exists. It’s the mutations that must provide the new genetic information, and mutations do not occur according to what is needed for an organism to survive; they can only cause the being to survive (and thus be selected) after they happen to occur. Stephen Meyer explains:

Yes, of course, natural selection is a “nonrandom” process as Dawkins correctly insists. Rates of reproductive success correlate to the traits that organisms possess. Those with fitness advantages will, all other things being equal, out-reproduce those lacking those advantages. Got it. Understood.

Yet, clearly, there is more to the evolutionary mechanism than just natural selection. Instead, the standard neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism comprises (1) natural selection and/or (2) genetic drift acting on (3) adaptively random genetic variations and mutations (of various kinds). Moreover, as conceived from Darwin to the present, natural selection “selects” or acts to preserve those random variations that confer a fitness (or functional) advantage upon the organisms that possess them. It, further, “selects” only after such functionally advantageous variations (or mutations) have arisen. How could it do otherwise? Selection does not cause novel variations; rather, it sifts what is delivered to it by the random changes (e.g., mutations) that do cause variations. Such has been neo-Darwinian orthodoxy for many decades.

All this means that as a mechanism for the production of novel genetic information, natural selection does nothing to help generate functional DNA base (or amino acid) sequences. Rather it can only preserve such sequences (if they confer a functional advantage) once they have originated. In other words, adaptive advantage only accrues after the generation of new functional genes and proteins — after the fact, that is, of some (presumably) successful random mutational search. It follows that even if natural selection (considered separately from mutation) constitutes a non-random process, the evolutionary mechanism as a whole depends precisely upon an ineliminable element of randomness, namely, various postulated or observed mutational processes. (Nor is any of the above particularly controversial within evolutionary biology....)

Read the rest of the post, and see here for more on why the creation of all life through a random development of meaningful genetic information is, as Meyer said, “overwhelmingly more likely to be false than true.”

Links Mentioned on the 3/30/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Jury Duty (0:00)

• What Counts As Evidence? by Amy Hall (quoting J. Warner Wallace)

Commentary: Using a Game Plan (0:20)

• Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl

Questions:

– Announcements:

• Upcoming events with STR speakers 
• Greg in Playa del Rey, CA on 4/02/16 – Decision Making and the Will of God

1. Do the variations in old New Testament manuscripts mean we don't have a reliable Bible? (0:42)

• The Fundamental Premise behind Ehrman's Claims by Melinda Penner
• "Misquoting" Jesus? Answering Bart Ehrman by Greg Koukl (includes a link to an article explaining how variants are counted—or see here)
• Investigating Bart Ehrman's Top Ten Troublesome Bible Verses by J. Warner Wallace
• An Interview with Daniel B. Wallace on the New Testament Manuscripts by Justin Taylor (describes the types of variants)
• The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Michael Kruger
• The Question of Canon by Michael Kruger

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Do People Change Their Minds about Abortion?

Do people change their minds about abortion? Some say no. They believe that people are committed to one side or the other and no one ever changes their mind. This is false. People do change their minds about abortion. Many who once identified as pro-choice now claim they are pro-life. Pro-life persuasion works. Using the right tactics is the key.

Last Monday, I spent the entire day teaching Oregon Right to Life students at an amazing annual pro-life camp called Camp Joshua. I presented the case against abortion, explained the science and philosophy supporting our pro-life position, and made them role-play the tactics of persuasion. The following day, I took the students to the streets of downtown Portland and had them perform an informal survey about abortion with random people in the streets. This gave the students an opportunity to strike up conversations about abortion with people who vigorously disagree with them and practice the pro-life persuasion skills they learned the day before. As a result of this training, these students walked away from this experience with a confidence to share their pro-life convictions. It’s a confidence you rarely see anywhere else in the Church. These high schoolers can now talk to anyone they come in contact with about abortion because they just did that with dozens of adult strangers in the diverse downtown area of Portland.

Not only were these students trained, but many of them saw something remarkable happen: People changed their minds about abortion. Wait, what? That’s right, some people changed their minds on the spot.

Heresy! That’s impossible! People can’t change their mind on the spot! If you change a person’s mind, you probably won an argument but lost a [insert a powerfully rhetorical phrase suggesting that “winning” an argument means you damage a relationship in some way]. That’s just not true.

People change their minds on abortion every year in downtown Portland as a result of bold and thoughtful high schoolers using the right tactics. Here are three (though not all) tactics that helped change minds this year.

Tactic #1: Talk about abortion. You’re probably thinking, That doesn’t sound very profound, Alan. What else would anyone talk about? What I mean is to focus your conversation on abortion, not closely-related topics like choice, privacy, rape, and economic hardship. If you follow these rabbit trails instead of talking about abortion itself, then you’re not likely to change anyone’s mind. You’ll simply talk for hours, days, or weeks about all these other issues, but never about abortion. Then you’ll come to me and say, “Sorry Alan, but changing minds on abortion doesn’t work. It sounds good in theory, but it’s just not possible.” I’ll remind you, though, that talking about other tangential issues isn’t the same as talking about abortion.

Indeed, I taught Camp Joshua students an important tactic to help them stay focused on abortion and the status of the unborn: Trot Out the Toddler (TOTT). This tactic involves a simple line of questions that helps the pro-lifer show an abortion-choice advocate why the rabbit trail they’re on is not as important as talking about abortion itself. During our debrief, several students shared that TOTT worked perfectly at bringing the conversation back to the issue of abortion. That way they could focus their short time with passersby on abortion and the status of the unborn, rather than the many side discussions that normally arise.

Tactic #2: Make a scientific case for your view. Many abortion-choice advocates believe that the only type of reasoning pro-lifers have to offer involves a religious-based argument. Although we can certainly make a case against abortion from Scripture, a savvy pro-lifer knows that many people don’t consider the Bible authoritative, and therefore, they must use sources that secular people trust. Since science is an authority in many people’s minds, I trained Camp Joshua students how to make a scientific case for the full humanity of the unborn from the moment of conception. Not only does this avoid the charge that our pro-life view is merely a religious view, but it’s a powerful persuader of the truth. The high school students were able to simply point people to the science of embryology to show that the unborn is a human being. Several students reported that their scientific defense was convincing to people in downtown Portland.

Tactic #3: Use images of the unborn. We live in a culture that thinks and learns visually. Powerful images have been used to persuade people on topics like cruelty to animals, the civil rights movement (for African Americans), the effects of smoking, and many other causes. The pro-life movement would be remiss not to leverage the persuasive power of truthful images that depict the unborn. That’s why a key component of the pro-life case involves showing images of the unborn at various stages of development. This is not a substitute for an argument (we make a compelling scientific and philosophical argument for our position), but rather it complements our case. Many people are stunned to see images of a nine-week-old human embryo that looks like a little human being (because it is a little human being, after all). Even abortion-minded women sometimes change their minds when they see images of embryonic development or ultrasounds of their own children.

Occasionally, images of abortion are necessary. These graphic pictures (or videos) show the violent nature of abortion and its effect on the unborn. Though they are hard to look at, they depict the procedure better than words ever could. If people want abortion to remain legal, then it’s only fair that we see abortion and what does to other human beings.

I teach pro-lifers to use graphic visual aids very carefully. They are taught not to spring them on people with little to no warning. Instead, they give people advanced warning of exactly what they’re going to see and an opportunity to decline seeing them. That way they don’t betray people’s trust when they’re talking to them.

My students practiced this approach last week. They had a few occasions where they offered to show graphic images to people during their conversations about abortion. Some people declined, but some agreed to see them. One man changed his mind about abortion right after seeing the pictures. “That’s messed up,” he said. That’s because the graphic images conveyed an important truth: Abortion kills a vulnerable and defenseless human being.

These are just a few of the tactics I taught last week. There are many more. The important thing to remember is that the art of pro-life persuasion works. People change their minds on abortion. Using the right tactics is the key.

What Easter Says to Those Who Are Suffering

Last week, I read through a Holy Week devotional from Desiring God titled Your Sorrow Will Turn to Joy (available for free on their website—get it for next year!), and I very much appreciated these words by David Mathis from the end of the book:

Christ has been raised. Day no longer is fading to black, but night is awakening to the brightness. Darkness is not suffocating the sun, but light is chasing away the shadows. Sin is not winning, but death is swallowed up in victory.

Indeed, even agony will turn to glory, but Easter doesn’t suppress our pain. It doesn’t minimize our loss. It bids our burdens stand as they are, in all their weight, with all their threats. And this risen Christ, with the brilliance of indestructible life in his eyes, says, “These too I will claim in the victory. These too will serve your joy. These too, even these, I can make an occasion for rejoicing. I have overcome, and you will more than conquer.”

Easter is not an occasion to repress whatever ails you and put on a happy face. Rather, the joy of Easter speaks tenderly to the pains that plague you. Whatever loss you lament, whatever burden weighs you down, Easter says, “It will not always be this way for you. The new age has begun. Jesus has risen, and the kingdom of the Messiah is here. He has conquered death and sin and hell. He is alive and on his throne. And he is putting your enemies, all your enemies, under his feet.”

Not only will he remedy what’s wrong in your life and bring glorious order to the mess and vanquish your foe, but he will make your pain, your grief, your loss, your burden, through the deep magic of resurrection, to be a real ingredient in your everlasting joy. You will not only conquer this one day soon, but you will be more than a conqueror (Rom. 8:37)….

Easter announces, in the voice of the risen Christ, “Your sorrow will turn into joy” (John 16:20), and “no one will take your joy from you” (John 16:22).

With the cross and resurrection at its core, Christianity need never deny the reality of evil and suffering because Jesus has proven Himself to be greater than all of it. He didn’t just overcome it, He overcame through it. The cross was the very means by which He secured joy: “[F]or the joy set before Him [He] endured the cross, despising the shame” (Hebrews 12:2). In this same way, all evil will be swallowed up. We will, in our resurrection, see that what we suffered was the means by which we gained joy, and the “eternal weight of glory” produced by our affliction will turn the suffering we experienced into a drop of dye lost in an ocean.

Sometimes we’re tempted to think evil is stronger than God, but when we understand that every attempt evil makes to harm us is working for our good, we’ll see that all of evil’s weapons have been removed from it; there is nothing left it can use against us.

Homosexual Couples and Adoption

Alan explains why adoption policies should be approached with the general best interest of children in mind rather than letting rare circumstances dictate.

 

The Resurrection Changes Everything

Kenneth Samples has a post about “the Christian faith’s most dangerous idea” at Reasons to Believe:

“Dangerous ideas” in such disciplines as philosophy, theology, and science often challenge the standard paradigm (accepted model) of the day. These so-called unsafe ideas have radical implications for how people view reality, truth, rationality, goodness, value, and beauty, and can sometimes contravene what many people believe. Not only do such revolutionary ideas threaten accepted beliefs, but they also contain explosive world-and-life view implications for all humanity….

Naturalists (nature is the exclusive reality) believe that death is the final end of one’s life and existence and there is no escape from this inevitable consequence. In other words, the Grim Reaper doesn’t play favorites. Not only does everyone die but everyone also stays dead forever. There are no exceptions to this certain naturalistic fate.

From this perspective, any belief system that affirms life after death is sheer wishful thinking. Death is the great equalizer—it comes for everyone. This life is all there is so make the most of it. There is, then, no meaning to life other than what people can hope to create for themselves. Yet this bleak predicament fills men’s hearts with legitimate angst and dread. Everything that a person builds in this life is broken down completely and permanently by death.

In stark contrast to the naturalistic worldview’s melancholy and hopeless dilemma, historic Christianity’s most dangerous idea is that one man—Jesus Christ—died but didn’t remain dead. Following his public crucifixion, he rose from the dead on the first Easter morning. Therefore at the center of Christianity’s earliest preaching and teaching (kerygma) is the solemn proclamation that Jesus Christ lived on Earth, conquered death, and thus remains the living Savior and Lord.

Several strands of formidable evidence back Jesus’ historic bodily resurrection from the grave. These interwoven elements include the empty tomb, Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearances, the transformation of the apostles, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the change in the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, and finally the emergence of the historic Christian church itself.

The implications of this perilous proposition are staggering and life-changing.

Read the rest of his post, or read his whole book on this subject, 7 Truths that Changed the World: Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas.

We Were Loved and Saved by Our Trinitarian God

Derek Rishmawy describes “the triune shape of the gospel,” correcting the idea that the Father had to be convinced by the Son to love us:

Many critics have rejected the atonement as the satisfaction of God's justice and wrath because they've gotten the impression that somehow the picture is about a loving Jesus going to the cross in order to satisfy an angry Father who's just out for blood. And even when it's not explicitly taught this way, unless corrected, many people in the pews can get the impression that God somehow has to be convinced he ought to be merciful.

But this is not what we see in Scripture. Instead, we have a portrait of the triune God of holy love who purposes from all eternity to redeem sinners for himself, before it ever entered their minds to repent he looked to embrace us in Christ (Eph. 1:4-5; 1 Peter 1:20). God revealed his love for us in that while we were still sinners, cursing God with every breath, that the Son came to die for us (Romans 5:8). God doesn't have to be convinced or persuaded to love us, nor does the Father need to be convinced by the Son.

Indeed, Jesus makes it clear that the Father loves the Son precisely because the Son goes willingly to lay down his life for the sheep just as the Father desires because of his great love for us (John 10:14-18). Hebrews makes clear that the Son does so in the power of the Spirit (Hebrews 9:14). This is the triune shape of the gospel: Father, Son, and Spirit beautifully and harmoniously accomplishing the salvation of sinners.

In that case, we have to understand that God is not moved from wrath to love because of the death of Christ. He is moved by love to satisfy his wrath (i.e. judicial opposition to sin) against us by removing our guilt and enmity through the blood of his cross. Whatever else our people understand, they must see that mercy and grace are God's idea and accomplishment before it ever enters our minds, because God, by his very nature, is love.

Read the rest here.

Huge Sale on Resurrection Course Taught by Gary Habermas

If you like apologetics, you don’t want to miss taking a course from Gary Habermas on the resurrection. Do yourself a favor and look at the amazing deal going on right now (until midnight on Sunday) at Credo Courses for a 30-part video (or audio) class on “The Resurrection of Jesus.”

Gary Habermas, the world’s leading expert on the resurrection of Christ, has created an entire course just for you!

There is no more important event in human history than the Resurrection of Christ. This event not only evidences God’s intervention and love into the human condition, it tells the world that Christ is Lord.

The great thing about the resurrection of Christ is that it is not something God asks believers to accept with blind faith. This is an event that happened in human history with hundreds of historic details that people are called to examine to gain confidence in their faith in Christ.

That is why this 30-session Credo Course is focused solely on the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. There is not a more important event for Christians to know inside and out.

Tim recommended Credo Courses on the blog earlier this year. See what he wrote here.

Challenge Response: The Bible Doesn’t Teach Scientific Insights

Here's my response to this week's challenge:

The Fundamental Premise behind Ehrman's Claims

Listen to Greg Koukl and Michael Kruger discuss Herman's article.

Just in time for Holy Week – it’s just about a tradition now for Christmas and Easter – Bart Ehrman is raising the same old doubts about the New Testament documents. His conclusion is that we can’t know what really happened during the first Holy Week. The historical claims of the Gospels are unreliable.

One of Ehrman’s fundamental premises behind pretty much everything he writes is that the New Testament documents were not written by eyewitnesses. They were written very long after the events and are therefore unreliable products of oral transmission or just plain fiction.

If you learn some basic facts about the dating of the New Testament writings, you can see the problems with Erhman’s conclusions. This video by Frank Turek is a great, short explanation of evidence for the early dating of the New Testament books. There’s ample reason to believe the Gospels were written by the eyewitnesses Matthew, Mark, and John, and Luke is the investigative report of interviewed eyewitnesses.

The problems of memory and oral transmission Ehrman brings up to undermine the Gospels’ reliability are undercut when you realize that not that much time had passed when the accounts were committed to writing by the people who witnessed them. These were astounding events, which tends to burn things into memory. The events were also shared by many people, which helps support accurate memories and details. And the eyewitnesses began relaying these events to others very shortly after the resurrection. The Holy Week details were part of what they taught over and over from the beginning. And Luke interviewed many people for his account so he was able to get corroboration from various eyewitnesses.

Lee Strobel quotes A.N. Sherwin-White of Oxford in his recent article:

Is the resurrection a legend? Not a chance. A. N. Sherwin-White of Oxford said it took more than two generations of time in the ancient world for legend to develop and wipe out a solid core of historical truth. Yet we have a report of the resurrection – that Jesus appeared to named individuals and groups of eyewitnesses – which has been dated to within months of Jesus’ death.

Ehrman always sows doubt with a few issues. But looking at the scholarly evidence demonstrates that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts written within the living memories of the authors and others who lived through the events. They’re reliable accounts.

You can find Greg’s evaluation of Ehrman’s claims about the New Testament in this issue of Solid Ground.