Evolution Not A Problem For Thinking Christians

theApologetic on Facebook
I was sitting at home about to take a nap when a close friend called me and told me about a witnessing opportunity. Without hesitation, I kicked of my slippers, put on my flip flops and met him at his work. There in his office was a young guy, a son of a mutual friend with questions about life and about Christianity. I’d met him before but only briefly. A young guy of 18, he calls himself an atheist and asserts that he “believes in science.” I knew that in prior conversations he had been asked to clarify what he meant by “science” and had no response. Simply put, he was parroting what he had heard others say (a technique we all tend to employ) and this gap in his knowledge provided us as believers a great opportunity to help him with his thought process.

We shook hands and I asked him what kind of questions he wanted to ask. Without missing a beat he looked at me and said, “what about evolution.”

I tried not to smile. There are certainly those moments in life when we recognize that God has given us trials in order to prepare us for specific moments. Paul writes about this in Romans 5. This was my Romans moment. See, it is the objective of modern evolutionists like Richard Dawkins to use Darwinian evolution as a marketing tool against the Biblical God. By and large the church’s response has either been to ignore the questions all-together or to accept it and squeeze it into scripture. Both are incorrect and an violation of the trust we are to have in God. The truth is, any thinking Christian can deliver a simple apologetic against evolution in just a few moments time. Here is what I said to him.

The truth is, I love this question. So much of our culture has been brainwashed to believe that somehow evolution disproves God but we are going to look at why this is not so. There are two ways to address this question. We can address this question scientifically or we can address this questions philosophically.

1. Scientifically speaking let me make it clear to you that I do not subscribe to the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution. This theory states that all life formed randomly by processes no longer observed into animals we’ve never found. Furthermore, they claim that against all bio-chemical evidence to the contrary, life came from non-life and one animal turned into another completely different animal. Without going into the details, try to imagine a mousetrap. It has 5 moving parts and each part is inter-related. The base, the spring, the cheese-holder, the neck-snapper, and the lock. Now if any 1 of those 5 moving parts is gone, the whole mechanism fails. If the neck-snapper is gone, it won’t work. If the wood base is gone, it wont work. Does that make sense? (he said yes). Ok, now imagine if the wood base was made of paper- would the base be strong enough to lock the neck snapper in place? (he said no). You’re right, I said. So the mousetrap could not have evolved slowly and gradually through time since all parts are needed to be in place at the same time in the right order and of the right quality. We can observe this, test it, repeat it, and make predictions with this. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Compare with macro-evolution: it’s never been observed, repeated, tested, or predicted. The mousetrap is science, evolution is not. And you believe in science right?  (He said yes again).  Great, me too.

2.  Now we can also look at this philosophically. Lets say that none of what I said a second ago is true. Lets pretend that we see evolution happening everyday. News sorts of animals are constantly coming into existence; little rock piles get rained on and turn into goo which turns into a cell, and so forth. How does this prove there is no God? It doesn’t. It simply reflects the mechanism that God used to create the diversity that we see today. Additionally it would mean that Genesis 1-11 is allegorical rather than literal (a poem rather than a narrative). I personally, don’t believe this to be the case, but we’re just talking philosophically here. Something has to program the cell to evolve. If evolution were a law of nature, it would require a law giver. That law giver is God. A computer cannot operate with a program inside it telling it what to do, right? Well, DNA is the same way. DNA is digitally encoded to work a certain way. Someone had to program that code just like someone has to program the computer. As a matter of fact, Bill Gates said that DNA is just like computer code only a whole lot more complicated. So evolution does not disprove God, if it happens at all it actually demonstrates the process by which God works which then becomes an argument for God. Does that make sense?

Keep in mind reader that I am going over the basic apologetic here. Im not going into information theory or “shannon” information, or the fact that in order for natural selection to take place one must first have a replicating mutator. This being the case, the evolutionist must explain how the replicating mutator came to be. The point is, most people are not prepared or willing to delve into the science or philosophy behind their worldview. When you as the thinker can demonstrate the science or the philosophy to them with kindness and grace (remember, its by God’s grace that you know anything at all), you will gain their trust. From their you can explain how by knowing someone we can learn to trust them which brings us directly to the person of Jesus.

My meeting with this young man was profitable. We spoke for another hour or so before he had to leave and I had no desire to nap after that! I answered a lot of his questions and got a lot of smiles. We had some good laughs and I hope to meet with him again. I know that God is wooing him and Im grateful that he used me to answer this guys questions. Maybe next time he will use you.


Anthropology 100: Day 1

In our first day of anthropology we have yet to discuss anything related to anthropology.  Instead, we’ve focused largely on that evolution is a fact (not why or if) and the ideologies the professor doesn’t like.  Here are some statements:

1.  Evolution is the only explanation for life that “makes sense”

Oh really?  The never before witnessed concept of life spontaneously arising from non-life “makes sense?”  The lack of transitional fossils needed to validate the evolutionary perspective of the fossil record “makes sense?”

2.  Creation science and intelligent design are not science

It seems funny, don’t you think?  There are many fields that are “not science.”  For example, coffee is not science.  Hinduism is not science.  Blue is not science.  Yet the professor chose not to mention all the examples or even many examples of what science is not.  Rather he chose to enunciate two specific fields of study which he does not consider science.  It just so happens that the two fields he chose to denounce as “not science” are the same two that challenge just about every assumption that is built into this class.  Not only did he not explain why these two fields are not science, he also went on to explain science as the “search for truth” (from the class tutorial) and reinforces his definition as:

“Science deals with the testable hypotheses about natural processes.” (The Human SPecies, Rethelford. Ch. 1, pp. 27)

If this is so then “science” presupposes a natural explanation to everything!  The critical mind immediately recognizes the circular argument as well as the assumption but for you evolutionists out there here is the breakdown, “Everything is natural, science explains what is natural, therefore science explains everything.”  What is hilarious is that a few lines above the author states, “science never claims to have all the answers at any given point.”

Neither did the author or instructor quote any creation or design theorists.  Rather he only quoted the opponents to said theories.  Further he neither consulted the logical connection between his own fields and other evolutionary-bent fields before decrying “intelligent design” as unscientific.  He may have wanted to check with SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) whose main goal it is to search for “intelligent design” in radio waves.  He probably should have checked with Archaeologists whose goal it is to determine whether a piece of clay is just dirt or a pot shard from an ancient civilization.  He may want to ask leading scientists like Chandra Wickramasinghe, Stephen Hawking, or the late Francis Crick (co-discoverer) of DNA- all three of these brainiacs subscribe to the theory of Directed Panspermia- a substudy of Intelligent Design professing that life is too complex for Darwinian evolution and must have been “seeded” by alien life forms. I guess that this junior college professor is more aware then the aforementioned.  For more on the evolutionists definition of “science” please click here.

3.  Evolution does not confront the origins issue

Of course I can’t prove that the teacher actually said this although there were plenty of ear-witnesses.  Right after confirming that evolution will not conflict with our “religious beliefs” we were  told that anthropology does not approach the origins issue.  However, in the second sentence of the book (the Preface) we are made aware that this book will in fact approach the origins issue and in great detail.  Furthermore, the table of contents reveal that at least 4 of 17 chapters are concerned with the origins issue.

4.  Pastors and religious people in the past have had not problems with the class.

So after clearly revealing his belief that religious beliefs are not science we are now supposed to trust the opinion of non-scientific people on a scientific class?  Since when did a particular pastor or subscriber to a belief system determine the value of a class?  It’s like saying singers cannot be trusted with dancing but plenty of singers have said that dancing is fine and their opinion should be trusted.  Does he even hear what he is saying?

Unlocking the Mysteries of Life

Tyler Geffeney at Calvary Chapel OceansideLast week we saw Unlocking the Mysteries of Life a film by Illustra Media made in partnership with The Discovery Institute. In that film, some of the top minds in the sciences today discussed the major problems with Darwinian thought- both Darwin’s classic model and the augmented neo-Darwinian model.  Speaking in strictly scientific terms and in uses his own words, Darwin’s model was completely broken down.  Let’s review some of what we saw:

Irreducible Complexity– a  single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.  As an example of irreducible complexity, Dr. Michael Behe refers to the bacterial flagellum.

DNA Code-  In the 4 minute video animation, we saw how DNA, RNA, and protein formation occurs within a cell.  How the DNA is “read” by a molecular machine, guided into a ribosome, translated, and formed into protein.  Those protein pieces are then constructed to make even larger structure.  To view that segment again click here.

Chemical Evolution-  Scientist and evolutionist turn Design Theorist Dean Kenyon wrote the book on chemical evolution (a process never before seen).  After a student posed a challenge to the theory Kenyon wrote in Biochemical Predestination.

IMAG0236.jpgThis week’s homework:  Please answer the following questions as best you can and post them as a reply to this blog.  You may want to write it out in a Word format first and then copy and paste it into the blog.  Here is the prompt:

After watching the video and doing some of your own research, let’s pretend a close friend approaches you and say’s “How can you NOT believe in Evolution?” If you had just a few minutes to respond, what would you say?

We will share some of your responses next week when we watch The Privileged Planet.  See you then!

Debating Evolution: Define your terms FIRST!

Evolution is a dying theory.  Like many tyrants, however, the final throws of it’s fight will not be gentle.  No, evolution will not go quietly into the night.  Much like the T-1000 dying in a pool of hot liquid metal, evolution and it’s adherents will brutally and maliciously try to remain relevant in a modern, informed society.  As a soldier in this battle it is important- nay- essential that you recognize the tools of their attacks the most effective being the definition of terms.

In debating, you must understand that your debate will most likely not change the mind of the person to whom you are directing your apologetic but to the readers/viewers/etc.  Your sites, therefore, should be focused on influencing those who are listening-rather than those who are arguing.  As such, you owe it to your audience to your make clear your position on the terms being used.  Otherwise, the wily evolutionist will use them against you and may sway others to the position of ignorance.  Below are a list of terms of which to be conscious and how to use them in a debate:

1.  Evolution

Evolution has come to mean many different things.  Perhaps the most popular definition of evolution is “change over time.”  However, this definition is worded in such that to challenge evolution or that “change over time” has occurred is akin to being a wacko.  Again, the evolutionist has cleverly included a definition that disables it’s credible falsifiability.  What they really mean is that life evolved from simpler forms of life similar to the model proposed by Darwin in his 1850 publication.  This is easily refuted although not the topic of this blog.  Instead we will focus on the assumptions of the term “evolution” and examine it’s use in the debate.

Evolution (or descent) from simpler forms of life is also referred to as “molecules-to-man” evolution.  In The Fossils Say No, Duane T. Gish writes, “the general theory of…the evolution model, is the theory that all living things have arisen by a materialistic evolutionary process from a single source which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, inanimate world.”  This definition is dead on.  When the evolutionist uses this term, it is to this they are referring. They are not simply referring to “change over time” which has been observed to occur in a given species and is limited to the genus or familae classification (some refer to this as a “kind” although secular scientists largely reject this term for is Biblical implications).  They instead refer to the unobserved process of one species turning into another species and so forth.  Obviously for this to have happened a number of assumptions must be in place namely water, rock, electricity, a planet, a sun, oxygen, gravity, physical laws, and a universe to name a few.  When the evolutionists refers to evolution, they are assuming- without justification- that all these things have taken place.  You must not be so foolish to accept the term or to use the term without first clarify how you will use the term.  For example, make clear that evolution has 6 different unproven and unjustifiable assumptions attached:

1.  Cosmic evolution- the idea that physical laws brought into being all physical laws via the Big Bang (that’s right- a circular argument from the get go).  This idea directly contradicts all known evidence and scientific knowledge regarding the laws of thermodynamic, angular momentum, and more.

2.  Stellar evolution- the idea that stars and planets form by compressed gas and swirling hydrogen (the Nebular Hypothesis).  Also contradicts the laws stated above and has never been observed (no one has ever seen a star form).

3. Chemical evolution- the idea that chemicals floating around are intrinsically attracted to one another and can bond to form more complex chemicals.  This idea stands in direct contradiction to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics (that life gets less complex not more) and has been shown to be impossible without intelligent intervention.

4.  Organic evolution- the idea that life somehow arose from non-life or that consciousness arose from chemistry.  Dawkins refers to this step as a huge “gap” in evolutionary thought.  This step also stands in direct contradiction to the law of biogenesis which states that life always comes from life (not from non-life IE: a rock).

5.  Macro-evolution- the idea that one species of animal can arise from another species of animal (the most common assumption of the word “evolution”).  Directly refuted by the non-existence of transitional forms in the fossil record along with the Cambrian explosion speaking to a huge impulse of immediate life without ancestors.

6.  Micro-evolution- or adaptations refer to the fact that small changes occur with a species of a limited genus or familiae IE: blond hair, brown hair, green scales, blue scales, small beaks, large beaks, etc.

Note that of 6 different examples of the assumptions of the word “evolution” only 1 has ever been shown to be empirically valid.   Every example of macro-evolution you will find in textbooks will use micro-evolutionary examples as Darwin did.  For example, the use of changes in the color of a peppered moth, the size of finch beaks, or the enzymes in bacteria are all used to “prove” macro-evolution.  Each of these examples however, demonstrate small changes in a species limited to the genus or familae classifications; the moths remained moths, finches remained finches, and bacteria remained bacteria.

2.  Science.

Science comes from the French “sciencia” and has historically meant “knowledge” as it refers to a certain line of study.  Whether that study be the arts, mathematics, cooking, etc.  Webster’s dictionary defines science as “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”  Largely when something is “scientific”it is said to be subject to the scientific method.  In other words, something is scientific if it is

a.  Observable
b.  Falsifiable
c.  Repeatable (in a lab, for example)
d. Useful in predictions.

The evolutionist, however, has a much different meaning of science.  For the evolutionist, science is naturalism or preternaturalism; that is, the philosophical belief that “nature is everything that is, or was, or will be” to paraphrase the late evolutionist radical Carl Sagan.  In his book, The Devils Dilusion, David Berlinsky writes that, “In many respects the word naturalism comes closest to conveying what scientists regard as the spirit of science…. a general metaphysical position.” What the evolutionist/naturalist does here is take a substantive, unproven, philosophical presupposition and loads it into a general term in order to sway the debate in his favor. In this manner, there is no way they can be wrong.    To illustrate, take evolutionist Richard C. Lewontin in a review of Carl Sagan’s book, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Richard Dawkins further illustrates this point in an email letter to Phillip Johnson when he wrote, “Our philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true...”  What they are saying is “science” is “all there is” and “naturalism” is assumed as a truth.  However, this argument is circular and therefore illogical. So when Eugenia Scott from the NCSE claims that “evolution is scientific” what she means is that evolution is a naturalistic explanation based on an apriori commitment to an unproved philosophical position.  She does not mean that evolution is science in the traditional form for the following reasons:

a. Observable- no one has ever witnessed organic, cosmic, stellar, chemical, or macro- evolution.  The only type of “evolution” that has every been observed is that within a species at the genus or familae level.  The evolutionist will argue that evolution takes too much time (billions and billions of years) which is why no one has seen it.  Regardless of their justification, observation is an essential part of what science has come to mean.

b.  Falsifiable- evolution has been shown to be biochemically and genetically improbable to a degree of 10 to the 117th power- way beyond the scientific probability of a miracle and more than there are atomic particles in the universe.

c.   Repeatable- no lab experiment has ever been show to create one species from another species (macro-evolution) simply by the naturalistic mechanism of chance plus mutation.  On the contrary, experiments have largely demonstrated the inability of a given species to develop outside of it’s existing genetic code and be viable outside of the laboratory.

d.  Useful in predictions- even if evolution could be shown to be feasible it wouldn’t matter predictably since we have no way of forecasting the results of time plus chance acting on random mutations on a given species in a given environment.

Evolution has nothing to do with science.  It is a faith position.  Physicist and Information scientist Hubert Yokey writes, “the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter is simply an article of faith in strict reductionism and is based solely on ideology.” Evolutionist and co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick sadly offers, “Every time I write a paper on the origin on life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.” Evolutionist, mathematician and astronomer, Chandra Wickramasinghe agrees when he observes, “The emergence of life from a primordial soup on the Earth is merely an article of faith that scientists are finding difficult to shed. There is no experimental evidence to support this at the present time…”

As Creation or Design Theorists, we love science but not evolution.  Evolution has nothing to do with science.   As Philip Johnson wrote to Richard Dawkins,  when you “separate the philosophy from the science, the proud tower (of evolution) collapses.”  Therefore, when debating an evolutionist, be sure to qualify your use of the term “Science” as early as possible.  It is embarrassing to have assumed their definitions before realizing this, backing up and starting again.  You will appear fragile and inconsistent.  Rather, approach their definition up front and refute it (easily).  For more information on refuting naturalism see my blog on “refuting naturalism” (coming soon!).

Religion vs. Science or Religion vs. Religion?

While its true that Creation scientist Duane Gish makes the claim that Creation is not science he- in the same sentence- says the same of evolution. His reasoning is that both belief systems appeal to a non-provable, non-repeatable, non-testable function.  While the evolutionists claim to be grounded in science, it must be noted that their theories have never been repeated, never been tested and have never been proven.  While we cannot repeat the Big Bang, neither can we repeat Creation.  In this manner, both evolutionism and Creation are religious in nature while both use scientific data to support their positions.  The difference is the religion; Theism (or the belief in an active, loving, personal God) or materialism (also called: naturalism or the belief that “nature is all there is”) This presuppositional approach is necessary of science in that evidence cannot “lead” anyone anywhere. It is only our interpretations of evidence that can lead- and the evolutionists know it!

Devout Evolutionist Richard C Lewontin in a review of Carl Sagan’s book agrees, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”

Richard Dawkins further agrees when in an email letter to Phillip Johnson he wrote, “Our philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true...” (He then goes on to “espouse” that Creation offers “no solution” to the origins debate- a circular argument)

In his response Johnson asserts that when you “separate the philosophy from the science, the proud tower (of evolution) collapses.”

We see that evolutionists in a variety of fields agree with the postulate that evolutionary origination is religious in nature- based not on empirical evidence (as they seem to claim over and over again) but on philosophical commitments (aka- faith). Physicist and Information scientist Hubert Yokey writes, “the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter is simply an article of faith in strict reductionism and is based solely on ideology”

Evolutionist and co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick sadly offers, “Every time I write a paper on the origin on life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

Evolutionist, mathematician and astronomer, Chandra Wickramasinghe agrees when he observes, “The emergence of life from a primordial soup on the Earth is merely an article of faith that scientists are finding difficult to shed. There is no experimental evidence to support this at the present time…”

Evolutionist and microbiologist,  Michael Denton also agrees “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

So when the leaders of the movement admit to being religiously motivated but a follower (ie: an evolutionist) claims to be irreligious then we see an inconsistency in their worldview- like jamming the wrong piece into the puzzle. We know that truth is not inconsistent so they must be incorrect. Indeed the evolutionary worldview lacks empirical evidence and as stated above requires a pre-commitment (a priori) to materialism. Otherwise stated, its conclusions are loaded into its assumptions. The matter then is not whether it’s religion against science (and I could go into this a bit further at another time) but a matter of reasonable faith (one with evidences) versus unreasonable faith (one without IE: Atheism, Mormonism).

I’m just glad I’m on the right team.

Conservation of Angular Momentum

“The ultimate origin of the solar systems angular momentum remains totally obscure”.

-Evolution scientist Stuart Ross Taylor.

Planet Formation Theory Collides with Backward-

orbiting Planets

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

The ancients used to observe what they called “wandering stars,” which are today known as planets. Naturalists insist that planets were not created by God, but were instead born from natural processes like gravity and collisions. So, they invented the longstanding, but long-troubled, “nebular hypothesis,” which suggests the solar system was once a spinning, disc-shaped cloud with dust particles that somehow collapsed inward to form the sun, planets, and moons.

If this were true, then the various planets should reflect nearly the same concentrations of various elements contained in the original dust cloud. Instead, each planet has its own special makeup. The nebular hypothesis would also predict that all the planets orbit the sun in the same direction, but this is also not the case. Neptune’s moon Triton and about half of the comets have a retrograde orbit, while Venus has a retrograde axial rotation.

Now, newly discovered gas planets far beyond earth’s solar system present the same challenge to the nebular hypothesis. At the April meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in Glasgow, Andrew Cameron, an astronomer at the University of St. Andrews, described recently discovered extrasolar planets that orbit backward. The Los Angeles Times reported, “That finding is inconsistent with the view that planets are formed by the condensation of dust from a disk surrounding a newly formed star.”1

Cameron and his colleagues also found planets with “highly tilted orbits.”1 These also fail to follow from the nebular hypothesis, which would predict that all planets would orbit at the same angle as the cloud disk that formed them. The LA Times quoted Amaury Tiraud, a co-author of the report, as saying, “This is a real bomb we are dropping into the field of exoplanets.”1

But since the nebular hypothesis has totally failed to explain earth’s nearest planets, why should anyone expect it to fare any better with extrasolar planets?2

Scientists who are constrained to random, natural forces as the cause for observed phenomena must seek other explanations for these odd orbits. Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institute for Science emailed the LA Times, stating that instead of a collapsing dust cloud, retrograde exoplanets could have been set in motion “through the much more dramatic and exciting process of gravitational billiards,”1 or collisions in space. This is by no means the first time that collisions have been invoked to explain the fine-tuned motions that characterize the skies, and they have their own set of obstacles with which to contend.3

If planets look like they were placed in certain orbits on purpose, perhaps they actually were. How much more faith is required to believe that “billiards” is a better explanation for fine-tuned cosmological features than an actual Person who did the tuning?

See the original article at:  http://www.icr.org/article/5349/

“This (angular momentum) would have caused our sun to spin very rapidly. Actually our sun spins very slowly while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has 99% of mass in the solar system, it only has 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted by the nebular hypothesis” -Dr. H Reeves, The Origin of the Solar System.