The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins (Part 3)
Read the series so far.
Life not from Earth
It is a universal law which, as all scientific laws, has not witnessed an exception: life does not come from non-life. Yet evolutionists, of the non-theistic sort) must teach that it does. Going further back, ex nihilo nihil fit, out of nothing comes nothing. No one has ever seen or heard of something (i.e. that which has properties and permits predication) coming into existence from nothing (that which has no properties and does not permit predication). Yet evolutionist must adhere to the contradiction of this very basic principle. That is, unless they want to teach the eternity of matter.
Is it a sign of rationality and a coherent system to flout two empirically static principles of science at the very outset of ones thinking? So how do they get around it?
Staying with the life question, one quite popular maneuver is to equivocate on the word “life.” Instead of keeping with a basic definition like “a self-replicating organism” (which is a reductionistic and often imaginary concept itself), they talk about “life” within hypothetical extrapolations where amino acids are formed in an ancient “soup” under propitious chance conditions. In this chance scenario these different amino acids came together in one place, beating off all the enormous odds of ultra-violet destruction and threat of contamination and, voila! “Life.” A self-replicating cellular system? No. Any DNA? No. What was it then? “Well suppose…” So the story (or a version of it) runs. In evolutionism, organic life must come from non-living compounds. So much the worse for the laws of science.
The problems with getting life started, even granted the excessive gratuity of the 20 correct left-handed amino acids which make up basic proteins, would still remain a fantasy. In fact, as geneticist John Sanford, the inventor of the “gene gun” has said, “fill the whole world with proteins, and you would still be no closer to getting life. Because proteins do not equal life.” This is because of the amazing micro-machinery within even the simplest cell; machinery which is told what to do by a “code” far more advanced than any computer software we possess.
Knowing the extremely unlikely chances that life could come about on this planet the way many evolutionists had hoped, eminent scientists like Fred Hoyle, Francis Crick and Carl Sagan believed that it had to start elsewhere and come from outer space. (And the complexity of the cell is known to be yet more wondrous than these men knew.) Of course, claiming life came from outer space isn’t an answer at all (although it might keep the issue of biogenesis off the table for a while longer). We still have to ask, “How did life start some other place in the universe?” Out of sight, out of mind is really all that is being done here; just a rhetorical trick.
This rhetorical trick is performed all the time by evolutionists. They simply put their imaginations forward as some kind of scientific proof. Therefore, they try to put the burden of proof on someone who says, “Well, how did this happen?” They say, “I’m not sure, but I can imagine it happened this way.” If they can imagine it happened that way, then it could have happened that way, couldn’t it? This is what Miller-Urey, or Avida or any other like program is. As Stephen Meyer has said about these information fed extrapolations,
Since the lawlike processes of necessity do not generate new information, these combinatorial models invariably rely upon chance events to do most, if not all the work of producing new information. This problem arises repeatedly for models invoking prebiotic natural selection in conjunction with random events, whether Oparin’s theories or various RNA-world scenarios. Since natural selection “selects” for functional advantage, and since functional advantage ensues only after the result of a successful random search for functional information, combination models invariably rely upon chance rather than selection to produce new information. Yet these theories face formidable probabilistic hurdles, just as pre-chance models do. (Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 331)
Here are some fundamental questions to start with:
- If the chances of a living cell coming from non-living elements (which themselves came from hydrogen and helium!) are staggeringly small, why believe it?
- All living cells contain DNA, but how did the informational instructions (incredibly complex specific code) for each of the cell’s operations come about?
- As every instance of this kind of instructional information ever known comes from minds, why look for it’s cause in mindlessness?
- Why because all amino acids are left-handed must that mean all life is related to a common ancestor? (a variety of the compositional fallacy)
- In the same vein (and the same fallacy), why because different creatures have features which look similar are they necessarily derived from a common source? N.B. These fallacies are built upon the premise that evolution is true—hence begging the question. Do forks and spoons and scissors and whisks have a common ancestor?
- Since evolutionists wrongly predicted there would be much “junk DNA” (see Meyer, Signature, 406-407) and creationists rightly predicted there wouldn’t, why label evolution science and creationism religion?
- How long is it going to be until evolutionists admit that the fossil record, which is the sole source for determining the truth or falsity of evolutionary history, undermines the whole theory?
The math
The mathematics on this is just staggering! Michael Denton is not Christian, doesn’t believe in God, and he doesn’t believe in creationism, but he doesn’t believe in the present neo-Darwinistic view of evolution either. He says that it’s “nonsensical.” Writing about the possibility of life starting by chance, he says:
As it can easily be shown that no more than 10 to the power of 40 possible proteins could have ever existed on earth since its formation [and Denton believes Earth is billions of years old], this means that if protein functions reside in sequences any less probable than 10 to the power of -40 it becomes increasingly unlikely that any functional proteins could ever have been discovered by chance on earth. To get a cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place; that is 100 simultaneous events, each of an independent probability, which could hardly be more than 10 to the power of -20, giving a maximum combined probability of 10 to the power of -2,000.
Evolutionists have got to take the odds (although they often subtract important data to reduce the number). Denton continues:
Recently Hoyle and Wickramasinghe in Evolution from Space provided a similar estimate of the chance of life originating, assuming functional proteins have a probability of 10 to the power of -20: “By itself this small probability could be faced because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the earth.” The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 20 to the power of 2000; that is 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of an organic soup. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 323)
These numbers are closer to nil than quarks and mesons are to nothing. When you are getting this kind of figure, when you think that 10 to the power of 40 possible proteins ever existed, and yet the chances of life originating by chance is 10 to the power of 40,000, you need to give it up. We are way past Disneyland imagination here. We’re in Cuckoo Land.
Again:
the probability that even one of these information-rich molecules arose by chance, let alone the suite of such molecules necessary to maintain or build a minimally complex cell, is so small as to dwarf the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. (Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 222)
Evolution couldn’t get going. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection, but that cannot be part of the equation at this critical juncture. This is nonsense.
Yet according to Hazen and Trefil in the book Science Matters, the first stage chemical evolution, “encompasses the origin of life from non-life.” We have every right to say, “No it doesn’t!”
And we have the National Association of Biology Teachers in the USA writing such things as:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution; an unpredictable and natural process of temporal dissent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments.
We have a right to ask if that is what the fossil evidence demonstrates. It demonstrates the exact opposite. We have a right to proof that genetic entropy does not far outpace beneficial genetic modification. We have a right to inquire about the circularity of the whole idea of natural selection and its power to effect the macroevolutionary change implied in the statement above.
Even if we allow them every pass, they have not come anywhere near proving macroevolution. We could even go so far as the progressive creationists and allow some form of evolution. Thus, Collins observes:
Let us grant that it is possible that some parts of neo-Darwinism are right. Say that animals today are descended from animals that lived long ago and that there has been some process of evolutionary change. The question is, however, Is the grand theory as a whole worth believing? Well, if it depends on claims that haven’t been proven, we can say that it hasn’t been proven true and if it depends on things that are likely to be false then we can say that the theory is likely to be false. (C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?, 270-271)
That is putting it mildly.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 65 views
Paul, you aver in point 7 that “How long is it going to be until evolutionists admit that the fossil record, which is the sole source for determining the truth or falsity of evolutionary history, undermines the whole theory?” I’m not sure what you mean by it. I have read Meyer’s books and I still don’t get it.
I know dozens of biologists, and about a half-dozen geologists (including 1 paleontologist) personally and rather closely. Now let me assure you that not one of them is a Christian. NOT ONE OF THEM believes or accepts that the fossil record does not reinforce their belief in evolution. In fact they trumpet it day after day. The ONLY research biologists/geologists that agree with your statement work for ICR or AiG (or are very quiet out there in their institutions). What I mean is that science FIRMLY ACCEPTS evolution. They believe the evidence matches they predictions of the theory. So we as Christians can write all the books we want from the outside, but that is never going to change that fact.
I just don’t want the average reader to think that there is a smoking gun out there in the fossil record (that is presently known) that the evolutionists suppress. Evolutionists LOVE the fossil record. It is their Bible.
Mark says,
“I know dozens of biologists, and about a half-dozen geologists (including 1 paleontologist) personally and rather closely. Now let me assure you that not one of them is a Christian. NOT ONE OF THEM believes or accepts that the fossil record does not reinforce their belief in evolution. In fact they trumpet it day after day. The ONLY research biologists/geologists that agree with your statement work for ICR or AiG (or are very quiet out there in their institutions).”
But Mark, that is not because they can point to the fossil record and find the evolutionary tree of life depicted in the textbooks. They can’t. It is because they look at the evidence with the assured belief that evolution MUST be true! It is never questioned. If the fossil record shows sudden appearance followed by stasis (which it does), then some kind of saltationist explanation is brought in (or, e.g. punctuated equilibria, which is question-begging as an explanation). If the many gaps are inconveniently pointed out, these will be filled in in time. But evolution is true for these guys and that’s it.
You write, “What I mean is that science FIRMLY ACCEPTS evolution.”
But you have just committed something close to the same error. You presumably do not believe in evolution because you think it untrue, correct? If it’s untrue then it cannot be good science. All scientists may do bad science because “science” is not necessarily the same as “what scientists do.” The problem is methodological cum philosophical naturalism (which I go on to critique).
Finally, after setting out the clear evidence of the ‘Cambrian’ fauna which cuts right across evolutionary predictions and requirements, Meyer, in his latest book, goes on to show how these different body-plans could not arise via evolution. For example,
the kind of mutations the evolutionary process would need to produce new necessary animal body plans - namely beneficial regulatory changes expressed early in development - don’t occur. Whereas, the kind that it doesn’t need - viable genetic mutations in DNA generally expressed late in development - do occur. Or put more succinctly, the kind of mutations we need for major evolutionary change we don’t get; the kind we get we don’t need.” - Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, 262.
Finally, you again take a backhanded swipe at the scientists at ICR, AiG, etc as if they weren’t doing science. Well, they’re doing it the same as secular scientists when it comes to empirical testing, etc., but not if “science” AS philosophical naturalism and its evolutionary postulations are in view. I am surprised if you’ve read Meyer’s books that you haven’t mentioned his extensive arguments for scientific method in your comments.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Paul Henebury]Finally, you again take a backhanded swipe at the scientists at ICR, AiG, etc as if they weren’t doing science. Well, they’re doing it the same as secular scientists when it comes to empirical testing, etc., but not if “science” AS philosophical naturalism and its evolutionary postulations are in view. I am surprised if you’ve read Meyer’s books that you haven’t mentioned his extensive arguments for scientific method in your comments.
Mark can speak for himself, but I took his statement to mean that scientists from ICR or AiG will just be seen as outliers in the scientific community, and although I don’t know this to be true, I would guess that their credibility ranks right up with Pons and Fleischmann among the majority of scientists.
Dave Barnhart
This picture illustrates the implication of the worldview both sides bring to bear on the same evidence. I think this is what Paul is talking about - the issue is really presuppositional:
Here’s another one:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
“Mark can speak for himself, but I took his statement to mean that scientists from ICR or AiG will just be seen as outliers in the scientific community, and although I don’t know this to be true, I would guess that their credibility ranks right up with Pons and Fleischmann among the majority of scientists.”
You may be right, and I would be happy to credit Mark with that view. But so what if scientists from these organizations are despised? Why should that be worth raising here? I am well aware that my position and that of most Christians would be anathema to secular science. But that is because of their epistemic and metaphysical assumptions: assumptions which, as I noted previously, destroy the scientific enterprise in the first place.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
If it’s untrue then it cannot be good science.
If the answer is a supernatural one, by present definition it cannot be good science. Truth and fact, by scientific definitions are different, and science sees itself with dealing in the latter rather than the former. Science is naturalistic in approach. It does not deal in the supernatural, and science that does is “wrong” as often “regular science”. See geocentric models of the solar system and the like for plenty of examples regarding that.
[Paul Henebury]I am surprised if you’ve read Meyer’s books that you haven’t mentioned his extensive arguments for scientific method in your comments.
Meyers is an Old-earther as myself. He would disagree with most of the AIG and ICR folks as I do also about a young-earth.
Gen.1.1-2.3 was directly given by God and could be seen as a special genre. I have read your counter of the framework position Paul, but am not convinced. The structure of Gen. 1 seems to indicate something else than a blow by blow account.
A verse in Proverbs alludes to ‘God hiding’ exactly ‘how’ He created the universe, but unfortunately the reference escapes me. Waltke mentions it in his work on Proverbs, but I cannot find it now.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
David, saying “that’s the way science is done” begs the question. As I have said before, science didn’t used to be done that way: e.g. not by Kepler or Boyle or Newton or Faraday or Maxwell; and not by many people today. Moreover, there is nothing about science qua science which necessitates methodological naturalism. But that method is based on an unworkable worldview. Methodological naturalism cannot explain itself as a philosophy of science. You seem to think that giving glory to God should not be part of science (see 1 Cor. 10:31; Matt. 22:37). If it should be I don’t understand your comment. You also appear to think (maybe I am wrong?) that science explains many things - it doesn’t, its describes them. The explanation IS God the Creator and Sustainer.
Alex, these posts are not about YEC and I usually cite OEC’s for that reason. John Lennox’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is the best OEC presentation I have seen. He dismisses the Framework view because it answers nothing: e.g. you can’t have birds without first having a sky for them to fly in. Thus, it is logically uninteresting. Whatever, can’t we just discuss the post?
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul, shall we erect an orthodox religious board that oversees the conclusions of the scientists?
Of course science could demonstrate more humility in what it purports to be able to explain (and I think it does explain things; there are some explanations that can be discovered prior to the ultimate Explanation, although you may be making a semantic distinction that I am not), but it’s a fallen world.
My point is that science does much well without being captive to Christian orthodoxy. Let the believers recognize God’s glory in what science reports even as they reject what they must to let God be true. And let us not be surprised when mainstream scientists look askance at scientists who go off the reservation to keep their findings in line with their personal theological understandings.
It is pretty sad when Christians would discourage other Christians from applying the truths of the Word of God in every area of live. If a Christian wants to study the world that God made, and apply what he already knows is true, he is doing an illegitimate study according to some folks. Sad indeed.
The problem is that we as Christians view an absolute right and wrong exists, because we view Scripture as an absolute view on Truth. The fact is that science is never absolutely right or wrong. Science is a framework that has been developed to explain observations or questions that a scientist may have. That framework (or model) is validated only as long as it continues to hold true for the observations that are noticed or continues to answer the question. That validation is confirmed by a consensus of scientists who are versed and respected in their field. Once a consensus is no longer maintained (or never obtained) or the model/framework does not agree with the observation, science disregards to the model/framework and continues to work on a proper model/framework. Science is constantly changing. In fact it is changing every day. What was true yesterday is not true tomorrow. We want to pin down evolution as some perfectly worked out model that scientist are considering the “truth”. And that is not the case. Evolution isn’t even a single theory. It is a very broad description of tons of smaller sub-theories that are changing rapidly.
The fact that a few Christian scientists, some with weak credentials are questioning the established science and have found some brand new issue or rehashing false assumptions is going to change science, we are kidding ourselves. The fact that a majority needs to agree with it, has already weakened the Christian scientists beliefs.
This is how it works. I am a scientist and have worked in both pure research as well as established principles. I believe in YEC. But I am not naive to ever believe that so-called Christian science will ever change any scientists mind on evolution. I am a YEC because the Bible teaches it. I have been friends with many evolutionary scientists and even some that are very influential in the community. Without a doubt everyone of them have said that if evidence is found and new models are confirmed to fit the new observations that they would abandon current scientific thinking. They would not recognize a God, though, because the concept of God is not science, that is something for religion.
While I appreciate Paul’s article above, first, it is easy to poke holes into evolutionist. Most evolutionists know and will confirm that there are numerous holes in evolution. The fact still remains that to the scientific community, it is the best framework to date. The most significant literature on the fossil record, and the models and frameworks built on the fossil record support the science communities ideas on evolution. Most, if not all, major institutions that are recognized in this area, such as the The American Geological Society and the Paleontological Society have clearly stated that the fossil record supports evolution. The fact that we can name a few scientists who may show something different, doesn’t invalidate the science behind the fossil record. It is estimated, based on polls, that anywhere from between 95% (at the lowest poll) to more than 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution. Again, I think it is naive that a room filled with 1,000 scientist, who are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination, there is 1 individual who holds the “real knowledge” of the truth, and that they alone have been able to see the data, and found out that the other 999 are flawed, and not only are they flawed, but despite their best efforts they are unable to see or agree with this individuals model.
David,
All science begins with an hypothesis. Then it experiments and observes to test the hypothesis. The problem with your statement is that secular science rejects out of hand the hypothesis that “God created” even though creation scientists have repeatedly shown that it is the best hypothesis to explain the facts. Secularists don’t reject the hypothesis “God created” on the basis of the facts but on the basis of their preconceived assumptions that there is no God and no supernatural influences are at work that explain natural phenomena. Both sides have the same facts with which to work, but each side begins with a different belief, a faith in their assumptions and hypothesis. This belief orients the observer, providing the lens through which the facts are viewed. This why the discussion regarding worldview is fundamental and why Christians need not ever accept the dichotomy that secularists want to place between so-called science and faith. Evolutionary science is just as much (I would argue even more since the facts don’t fit their theories) a faith a YEC is.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[dgszweda]Not all science starts with a hypothesis. Much starts purely with an observation. Something is seen and it needs to be explained.
Observation tells us that information always derives from intelligence. Since science rejects this most plainly observable reality, there must be something else going on.
“Not all science starts with a hypothesis. Much starts purely with an observation. Something is seen and it needs to be explained. I understand that secular science rejects a God, that is because God does not fit within the realm of any science, Christian or Secular. God is not a being that can be seen, hypothesized or tested. In fact apart from what God has revealed about himself, we would have no ability to know Him. I have no problem injecting God into this discussion. But our standing is significantly stronger when we take God out the scienticial part of this equation and we stop calling it Creation Science. We believe in a God who is beyond understanding, exists outside of our reality and is all powerful. Science does not have the framework as a study to include this.”
I understand your point but am curious as to how Jesus fits into this view. To say “God is not a being that can be seen” scientists have to disregard Jesus who is the manifest revelation of God. Jesus is declared by Scripture to be the creator and sustainer of all things. Jesus also did visibly manifested and recorded miracles which authenticate His complete authority over the created realm. How is it then that a scientist can claim that “God does not fit within the realm of any science?” Just curious as to your scientific explanation of Jesus.
Discussion