Evolution is defined as:
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
A reader brought up some good points, which I quote here (originally posted on Facebook):
Hi, Charles. I'd like to read more of what you have to offer, but I think it would be helpful to your point to, at least, shift your terminology in-line with accepted definitions. First, a "species" is a breeding population. Two species may still be genetically compatible, but do not normally breed with each in nature. In addition, typically, the union of two different species often produces a "mule," or a sterile offspring. What is sometimes called "microevolution" - a term that is falling out of favor - is more commonly termed "speciation." Speciation is simply when one species gives rise to a new, novel species. Speciation has been observed in the field and in the laboratory. "Macroevolution" -- again, a term falling out of favor - simply describes evolution over the categories of taxa - species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. However, really, "macroevolution" is just countless generational "microevolutionary" steps...
The concern I have here is the subtle shift in definition that has attempted to change the argument. As I stated before, we see variations within types of organisms, but we don't see the change from one type of organism into another. Given all the time requested, even billions of years, the small steps still have to result in one type of organism becoming another one (for evolution to be true). This is what we don't see. If we then say that the time required is far beyond that of the human life span, then we have a scientific problem: our hypothesis cannot be measured or observed, and so can never be proven.
And the 'big picture' questions remain: how do random, purposeless forces give us a universe of order? How did the living arise from the nonliving? Why is there something rather than nothing? How is it we can look at systems many times more complex than, say, a desktop PC, and cry 'random chance?' The PC on which you are reading this blog is incredibly complex, but you yourself are many times more so. Yet I know the PC to have been designed and built according to a plan. How then can I say that you are the result of random processes over billions of years? How do we rationally say that complex order arises from chaos? The fact is, we have to try very hard to deny the design we see in systems all over the world. A very good question is: why is it so important to so many for evolution to be true? What are the consequences if it is not? And once we say that no design exists, that all we have are purposeless, natural forces - we swim in some very dangerous waters, as we will explore going forward.
An excellent resource in the evolutionary debate is a book titled Darwin's Black Box, written by Michael Behe, who is not a Christian - just a scientist presenting issues with evolution. A great resource from a young-earth Creationist viewpoint (the one I defend throughout this series) is Answers in Genesis. Their website and other resources are great for teaching the Biblical viewpoint.
I'm not a biologist, but I do take an interest in this subject. I'll see if I can answer some of your 'big picture' questions.
ReplyDelete"how do random, purposeless forces give us a universe of order?"
Natural forces are not random. Planets are spheres, for instance, because of gravity. Is that what you mean?
"How did the living arise from the nonliving?"
The simple answer to this is, 'we don't know.'
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
I don't understand it myself, but you should look up Big Bang Theory and similar topics if you want to understand the science behind them.
"How is it we can look at systems many times more complex than, say, a desktop PC, and cry 'random chance?'"
We don't. You're attacking a straw-man of evolution.
"The PC on which you are reading this blog is incredibly complex, but you yourself are many times more so. Yet I know the PC to have been designed and built according to a plan. How then can I say that you are the result of random processes over billions of years?"
That's the big difference, isn't it? You know that the PC was designed according to a plan. You don't know that about the organism who's operating it. Again the processes are far from random. Do rivers flow to the sea by random chance? No. Yet we do not propose a river-god as the only alternative.
"How do we rationally say that complex order arises from chaos?"
You're playing very loose with your terms here. What do you mean by 'order'? What do you mean by 'chaos'? Have a go defining these terms. You'll find it difficult, but not as difficult as applying them to describe the known natural universe.
"The fact is, we have to try very hard to deny the design we see in systems all over the world."
This is a misleading analogy, in my view. Design proponents always start from an object which we know to have been designed and then argue from analogy. Try this thought experiment: you dig a hole. In it, you find a rock that looks to have been shaped into a spear-head. You also find bones and, when you sift the soil, pollens. You also find some round, smooth stones, that look like pebbles from a beach. Which of these items would you say were 'designed'? If you say 'all of them', then from my point of view, you've stretched the word, 'design' into such a broad definition that it's meaningless.
"A very good question is: why is it so important to so many for evolution to be true?"
It is true. It is important to me that children are not lied to about how nature works. Do you want Christian children to be disadvantaged, educationally?
"What are the consequences if it is not?"
I don't know. The fact is, evolution is true. Anyone who looks at the facts, and tests them by the scientific method, will be forced to the conclusion that it is true. The evidence in favour is absolutely overwhelming.
"And once we say that no design exists, that all we have are purposeless, natural forces - we swim in some very dangerous waters, as we will explore going forward."
I look forward to reading your thoughts on that.
Moving point by point, I’ll respond: (part 1 of 2)
ReplyDelete“How do random, purposeless forces…”
If there is no particular or special design to the universe, how is it we have natural laws that work predictably? Take gravity; it is a law because it is consistent and predictable; given certain information we can know what will happen. There was a point in the past when gravity was not in effect, because it did not exist. How did it develop? When I say ‘order’ I speak of laws. Gravity, thermodynamics, pick any you’d like. We see a universe working along certain principles, consistently. Why are these laws not continuing to change? How is it the basic nature of the universe came to this point – where we have predictable gravity – but it does not change further? Or take mathematics. 2 + 2 =4, and the fact that this is true consistently allows us to build things, solve problems, to exist in so many ways. Yet as something arose from nothing in the beginning, as natural forces worked in a purposeless manner, how then did mathematics arrive at the precise place it is now, and stay there? Must there not be some point in the future at which 2 + 2 will equal 5, as the universe continues its evolution? And if we say these laws themselves are beyond the scope of evolution, and that natural laws are eternally consistent, then where did they come from, if nothing exists beyond the natural world?
“How did the living arise…”
It is honest to say “I don’t know.” We all need to say that more often. A particular problem with evolution is that many are sure what did not happen – that is, supernatural creation – but they can’t explain what did happen. An intriguing (long) quote from George Wald:
“We tell this story to beginning students in biology as though it represented a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity". It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.” -cited at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html.
Mr. Wald is exactly correct, there are only 2 choices. And sadly, many will choose to believe what they know to be impossible because of the consequences of accepting the Creation account.
“Why is there something…”
The Big Bang Theory does not address the why. Much of what else I write in this series talks about the devastating results of evolutionary beliefs, because you must arrive at the point where you acknowledge that there is no “why.” Reducing reality to the level of the physical world, the natural – life is undirected and meaningless.
“How is it we can look…”
This is not a straw-man argument, it is a matter of complexity within systems. We understand a PC to be a complex machine, and we understand complexity to be the result of intelligence used in design. Why then do we look at natural systems many times more complex, and arrive at the conclusion that purposeless, unintelligent forces are responsible?
(part 2 of 2)
ReplyDelete“The PC on which you are reading…”
Some of this I addressed above. Rivers do flow according to natural laws; if we know the circumstances surrounding a river (elevation, size, weather conditions), we can predict where and how fast it will flow. Remarkably orderly and consistent, and no river gods involved .
“How do we rationally say…”
Complex order: the nervous system, the skeletal system, the cardio-vascular system, ecosystems… all systems working in orderly, predictable ways according to natural laws. By definition if something lacks purpose and direction, following no particular law, it is chaotic, as the beginning of an undirected universe must have been.
“The fact is, we have to try very hard…”
I would say that all the objects mentioned in your example were designed, by God, as part of creation. There may or may not have been some work done by men, in moving things around, or perhaps crafting the spearhead. This doesn’t render the word ‘design’ meaningless, it just ascribes the existence of everything in the natural world to the design of a Creator God.
“A very good question is: why…”
I don’t want any child to be disadvantaged! I want all children to be taught to critically think. For example, I don’t expect anyone to just *pop* into being a Christian without considering the facts. My belief in the atoning death of Jesus Christ is not just hopeful idiocy, although it will be labeled that by some. Reality itself truly bears witness to the truth of the God, if we honestly look at it. The damage we are doing today in schools is teaching a flawed theory as fact, denying any critical thinking in regards to it, and treating all philosophical ideas (except Christianity, ironically) as having equal merit. We don’t teach children to pursue the truth, because we (collectively) have embraced a belief system that denies it even exists. And in this series, we explore the consequences of this in sociology, history, science and psychology.
“What are the consequences…”
Freedom! Jesus, just before he died, told Pilate (and us) in John 18:37 exactly why he came to earth: “…to testify to the truth.” Pilate gave a very 21st century answer in the next verse, 38: “What is truth?” Truth and lies are what we will continue to explore, what we must explore if we would truly discover what this life is all about. The truth is tremendously freeing! Unfortunately for most, evolution is taught as fact and not theory; it is taught as truth that must be accepted before all else.
“And once we say that no design…”
I hope you’ll read to the conclusion of my arguments, but that could be a few days… weeks… but we’ll get there! :)
Of course I will! I will read and reply. Looking forward to them.
ReplyDeleteCharles, I'll answer a few of your points, but not all of them. My purpose here is mainly to correct misinformation about evolution. There is too much of that about, and it causes too many problems for the poor old biology teachers. Imagine, as Richard Dawkins said, if history teachers constantly had to defend the notion that there once existed a Roman Empire. It would cripple the teaching of ancienct history. That's what's happening in bilogy education today.
ReplyDeleteEvolution explains the *diversity* of life, not its origins. However, I'll answer a few of these.
"Must there not be some point in the future at which 2 + 2 will equal 5, as the universe continues its evolution?" No.
"Mr. Wald..."
You can believe what you want. Science is not a philosophy or a faith, but a method. There are, as it happens, many interesting hypotheses about how the first self-relicating molecules arose. 'I don't know' does me fine for now.
"Reducing reality to the level of the physical world, the natural – life is undirected and meaningless." Again, that is a philosophical question, which has very little to do with evolution. Could it be that you're arguing against atheism? That's a different argument. I am an atheist, as it happens, and would be happy to explain my beliefs, if you are interested, but some other time, perhaps.
"...Why then do we look at natural systems...?"
Evolution by natural selection is a powerful scientific theory, which accounts for all known facts, and is not fundamentally contradicted by any known fact. Properly understood, evolution explains how nature works, and why we see such a diversity of living things in the world today.
"Rivers do flow according to natural laws; if we know the circumstances surrounding a river (elevation, size, weather conditions), we can predict where and how fast it will flow."
Species evolve according to genetic drift, natural selection, genetic mutation, etc. There is no reason to assume a species-god.
"Complex order:...."
Life did not begin to evolve until the natural laws were well established, and there is nothing about evolution which contracts them.
(part II)
ReplyDelete"There may or may not have been some work done by men..."
Okay, simplify the question. You dig a hole. In it, there is a toaster and a dead rabbit. Which one was designed? How can you tell?
"The damage we are doing today in schools is teaching a flawed theory as fact..."
1. Evolution is not a flawed theory. The *scientific* debate over the fundamental questions of evolution has been over for about 100 years. There are still debates, which show that the scientfific method is alive and well, but evolution is NOT flawed. That is false.
2. Evolution is *not* a philosophical proposition, but a scientific theory. It works, whether you believe in God or not.
3. Science is not a philosophy. It is not a faith. It is a method. You, I, and every rational person uses it every day, to solve problems such as 'Why is my roof leaking,' or 'What will happen to me if I forget my wife's birthday?' Evolution is but one theory within the magesterium of science, along with atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and others. 'Critical thinking' has become a creationist buzzword for 'teach our theology.' Primary school students should learn, uncontroversially, that animals belong to families, and some species are more closely related to others, and that animals and plants adapt and evolve. Those are demonstrable facts, and it is a shame that well-meaning people make such teaching controversial, out of misguided beliefs. High school biology students should learn, uncontroversially, that all living things share a common ancestor, AND they should learn HOW WE KNOW. Science is a method - it ALWAYS involves critical thinking. From my own point of view, I do not think anyone should have to *believe* anything. But, I do think children deserve to *understand* evolution, through undisrupted science education. If they have questions, let them ask, of course.
"The truth is tremendously freeing!" On this, we can agree. Evolution is taught, if it is taught properly as *theory* but *scientific theory,* that means it explains the fact. But you should note: the evidence in favour is so overwhelming, that, in common parlance, it is not misleading to speak of the fact of evolution. I urge you to read more on the subject...not just on the web. There are many many books which explain evolution, and the evidence which supports it.
--Andy