Tag: evolutionary theory

24Apr

The Four Failures of Macro Evolution

Science is observable, testable, and repeatable. If something is not all three of these things, then it is not science, but rather a collection of just so stories. Is evolutionary theory science, or a collection of just so stories.

  1. Evolution fails to explain life. In fact, modern medicine is entirely based on a simple fact proven by Pasteur many years ago —life does not come from non-life. This is why we Pasteurize milk, it’s why we wash our hands before eating, and it’s why surgeons sanitize their instruments before they operate. If life could come from non-life, the entire medial world would be thrown on its ear in short order. The only answer evolution can answer is that life originated under very different conditions than exist today. These conditions can’t be explained, much less replicated. Here, then evolutionary theory falls outside science and into the realm of just so story.
  2. Evolution fails to explain species. Every time some scientist changes the color of rat’s fur, there are huge articles about how this proves the theory of evolution. Here, at last, is a repeatable experiment showing the mechanism evolution “used,” to create new species. Only all the evidence is actually on the other side. Men have been breeding dogs, cats, and peas for thousands of years, and no new species has ever resulted from this out and out genetic manipulation. Evolution can’t produce one new species, so clearly no repeatable experiment has been devised to show how evolutionary processes can actually produce new species. Evolution, then, falls into the realm of just so story here.
  3. Evolution fails to explain purpose. Even if a lab experiment could be designed to show how evolutionary processes could create new species, this leaves us with the question of why evolution would do so. Our language, and our lives, overflow with purpose we even talk about evolution using purposeful words. “Evolution created…” “Survival of the fittest…” Science cannot posit purpose. Purpose cannot be tested in a lab experiment. So evolutionary theory falls into the realm of just so story on these grounds.
  4. Evolution fails to explain information. No lab experiment has been designed which shows the rise of information, complete with metadata and interlocking information systems, from complete randomness. The point of randomness is, in fact, that it has no order, and cannot have order. You can listen to white noise your entire life; you’re never going to discover a symphony there. In fact, it would be difficult to develop a repeatable experiment which can actually show information generation from truly random inputs, because we humans find it almost impossible to actually find random inputs. Here again, evolutionary theory falls within the realm of just so stories, rather than real science.

There are two “evolutions” out there, one that’s a scientific theory about change in creatures, and how those changes came to be. Here you may find the changing of a moth’s skin, or the lengthening of a bird’s beak.

Then there is the evolution that tries to say that because the length of a bird’s beak can change, that bird with a longer beak can become a new species. That, in fact, every species —even life itself— must have come from the same mechanism that allows a bird’s beak to become longer.

This second evolution, it’s not a scientific theory. It’s not even science. It’s a bunch of just so stories dressed up in a lab coat and wearing little round glasses to fool us.

19Jan

Review: Should Christians Embrace Evolution?

Should Christians Embrace Evolution?
Edited by Norman C. Nevin

Is deistic evolution really a solid Christian stance? While evolution is on its last legs as a scientific theory, it is ever more pervasive in popular culture. If you don’t believe in evolution, you are dumb. Or so the popular sentiment goes. Because of this popular attitude, many Christians have caved in to evolutionary belief, integrating it into their Christianity, rather than critically examining it.

After all, you don’t want to be dumb, do you?

Should Christians Embrace Evolution challenges this line of thinking by asking the question: can a Christian believe the Scriptures are true and evolution is true at the same time? The answer, told from eleven different perspectives, is a decided no.

The book starts out with an essay by Alistair Donald discussing the historical context of the debate over evolutionary theory, specifically how the Church has related to the theory of evolution over the decades. There is a mythical history about that high level, intelligent Christians have “always” accepted evolution; this chapter puts that myth on notice. In the next chapter, Alistair McKitterick discusses the intent of the author of Genesis —a well placed question on the hermeneutics of the book impacting our reading of the creation narrative. Is the creation story a myth? Demythologized text? In chapter 3, Michael Reeves addresses the question of Adam and Eve. Were they real people? Chapter 4 discusses the fall and death in Paul’s writings, and how this relates to our understanding of the fall narrative in Genesis 3.

Chapter 5 addresses the heart of the question: can a Christian accept evolution? David Anderson argues the answer is no, grounding his argument in the proposition that combining Christianity and evolution always results in essentially gnostic errors. Andrew Sibley next argues that the combination of evolution and Christianity ultimately reflects on the character of God and his trustworthiness. R.T. Kendell argues in chapter 7 that every generation of Christians has a “stigma,” or a test, which it must endure in order to be found faithful, and that evolution is this generation’s test. Steve Fuller discusses the impact of evolution on the image of God in man’s creation in chapter 8, presenting an argument he believes will provide a winning hand for intelligent design theory.

The book next turns to specific points of evolutionary theory in chapter 9 with Norman C. Nevin’s essay. He covers the concept of homology and the fossil record. The chapter continues with an essay by Geoff Bernard on chromosomes, and then an essay by Andy McIntosh on information theory and the second law of thermodynamics. Geoff Barnard discusses the evidence of the genomic record and its relation to evolution in chapter 10, focusing on changes in pseudogenes. Finally, in chapter 11, John C. Walton discusses the part chance plays in evolution.

This is, perhaps, one of the strongest collection of essays entered into the Creation/evolution debate in recent years, and well worth reading from first page to last.

Arguments emerge that had not been thought of before; evidence is put forward which seems completely new; issues coalesce that point to the impossibility of believing what the Apostles believed. So today; we are in a post-Newtonian era. St Peter, Athanasius, Luther and Calvin had no trouble believing in creation ex nibilo; they also believed the world was flat (so it is argued). This is a new day, it is often said, and we must work out a faith to believe in that is consistent with modern science. The stigma of our generation, then, it seems to me, is to reject the theory of evolution and stand unflinchingly for creation by God: ‘that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.’ Behind the question of creation versus evolution is the very nature of faith itself, namely, whether we will believe God as a consequence of what he has said, putting his own integrity on the line; or whether we follow so-called empirical proofs at the level of nature. The nature of faith consists in this: Do we believe the word of God for its own sake or pay homage to the empirical method before we can trust the Lord? -Page 110

© Copyright 2014, All Rights Reserved