Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (NIV)
Jer 29:11-13 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (NIV)
In my last post, I showed significant evidence that the universe was created ex nihilo (from nothing) by a powerful, intelligent being, who exists outside our known universe and thus, outside our space and time. Many deists (as well as many agnostics and others) claim that they believe that God could exist, but that even if he does, he does not interact at all with his creation and he has nothing at all to do with us or our daily lives. This leaves Christianity as a farce invented by humans for their own purposes.Rom 12:1-2 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (NIV)
If God does not interact with His creation, if he simply set it on its way and then ignored it, then how did life come to exist in the universe? If life came about in the universe as a work of a creator (created after the universe expanded to existence during the Big Bang), then we know that God in fact does interact with his creation and we must ascertain to what degree.
The only alternative to life in the universe being as a result of a creator is that life came about from nothing through random chance. What, then, is the probability that life could come to exist in this universe as a matter of random chance? That is the question I will address next.
Abiogenesis vs Theory of Common Origin
Before we begin any discussion of evolution we must first define what the term means, because it means different things in different contexts.In the common vernacular, one might say "a country's foreign policy evolves along with the experience of its leadership". This simply means changes over time. When discussing evolution with respect to origin of life, however, it means something very specific.
Because of the significant issues of life coming into existence from non-biological sources, however, this problem has been separated from the historical "evolution" moniker and has been termed "abiogenesis" which literally means "the beginning of biological life from non-biological matter", with traditional "evolution" being termed the Theory of Common Origin (TCO).
In this way, these two subjects can be addressed separately and proponents of TCO need not concern themselves with abiogenesis and can file it under the heading of "we don't know (and don't really care)".
We will begin with a discussion of the Theory of Common Origin about which was first published widely by Charles Darwin.
Adaptation (Micro-evolution) vs Speciation (Macro-evolution)
Micro-evolution, or adaptation, is indisputable and can be seen within a
lifetime. This is brought about easily
by breeding animals with certain characteristics. For example, selective breeding can ensure
offspring with certain characteristics – i.e. a certain color or other physical
characteristic. No one disputes micro
evolution. Evidence of micro evolution
is demonstrated in the Bible when Jacob influences the color of the sheep and
goats he is tending.[4] Interestingly enough, adaptation is seen by many as really good evidence of great design by the Creator.
Macro-evolution, or speciation, however, is another story altogether. The principle of macro evolution claims that
a species can evolve into another species (as noted above).
According to Darwin,
this happens naturally based on selective breeding (strong and beautiful
animals are attracted to other strong and beautiful animals) and survival of
the fittest.[5]
Because this process must happen in very small incremental
steps, the amount of change required for a species to change into another
species would happen over hundreds or thousands of generations (or more) over vast periods of time.
When speaking of Darwin, though, one must address the subject of his works "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man". These works define the details of the Theory of Common Origin.
Darwin posits in these works that those species which are strongest will survive and those which are weakest will not (survival of the fittest). He states that one can see changes in various species in just a few generations and that any such changes which are beneficial will make the species stronger leading to a higher chance of survival and propagation of that new trait to its offspring. Changes in individual animals which make them weaker cause them to die off with a lesser chance of propagating that weakening trait to its offspring.
He speculates that with one small change (genetic mutation) at a time over many, many generations a species will change enough that it will become a new species. A new species being loosely defined as a species which cannot successfully produce non-sterile offspring with it's previous form. Thus if an ape eventually evolves into a human then they are now separate species and a human cannot successfully produce non-sterile offspring with an ape.[24]
This notion of gradual evolution over long periods of time is crucial to the theory of evolution. Many have found fossils which they claim are a transitional form between two other forms. Darwin, however, specifically states that you cannot go from one form, to one other transitional form, and then a new form altogether (three steps).
To show evidence of the evolutionary cycle, one must show every single step between one form to another as one or two traits show up in consecutive generations. Thus you must not find 3 forms, but hundreds or thousands of forms between Species A (the original species) and Species B (the new species).
Darwin goes to great length to explain the lack of fossil evidence, but he invariably comes back to the incompleteness of the fossil record. 173 years later, this is still a huge problem for Darwinian Evolution.[25]
It is important to note here that Darwinian Evolution is not fatal to the Christian worldview. It is possible that God chose to do his work of populating the Earth with many wondrous varieties of species through the process of evolution. For more information about Theistic Evolution see Appendix C.
My objections to evolution are not as much religious as they are scientific as we will see more as we go along. Regardless, though, of if all life on this planet began with "a few or one" original species, the much bigger question is, where did that "few or one" species come from?
Macro-evolution under the microscope
When speaking of Darwin, though, one must address the subject of his works "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man". These works define the details of the Theory of Common Origin.
Darwin posits in these works that those species which are strongest will survive and those which are weakest will not (survival of the fittest). He states that one can see changes in various species in just a few generations and that any such changes which are beneficial will make the species stronger leading to a higher chance of survival and propagation of that new trait to its offspring. Changes in individual animals which make them weaker cause them to die off with a lesser chance of propagating that weakening trait to its offspring.
He speculates that with one small change (genetic mutation) at a time over many, many generations a species will change enough that it will become a new species. A new species being loosely defined as a species which cannot successfully produce non-sterile offspring with it's previous form. Thus if an ape eventually evolves into a human then they are now separate species and a human cannot successfully produce non-sterile offspring with an ape.[24]
This notion of gradual evolution over long periods of time is crucial to the theory of evolution. Many have found fossils which they claim are a transitional form between two other forms. Darwin, however, specifically states that you cannot go from one form, to one other transitional form, and then a new form altogether (three steps).
To show evidence of the evolutionary cycle, one must show every single step between one form to another as one or two traits show up in consecutive generations. Thus you must not find 3 forms, but hundreds or thousands of forms between Species A (the original species) and Species B (the new species).
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." -- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Darwin goes to great length to explain the lack of fossil evidence, but he invariably comes back to the incompleteness of the fossil record. 173 years later, this is still a huge problem for Darwinian Evolution.[25]
It is important to note here that Darwinian Evolution is not fatal to the Christian worldview. It is possible that God chose to do his work of populating the Earth with many wondrous varieties of species through the process of evolution. For more information about Theistic Evolution see Appendix C.
My objections to evolution are not as much religious as they are scientific as we will see more as we go along. Regardless, though, of if all life on this planet began with "a few or one" original species, the much bigger question is, where did that "few or one" species come from?
Abiogenesis
Darwin
did not understand molecular biology as we understand it today. He had no electron microscope and was unaware
of DNA. His theory was formulated solely
based on observation of the natural world.
Today, in order to reconcile with modern science the idea that life came into existence on the Earth without help from a Creator, many assumptions have to be
made about such things as the age of the earth.
For life to evolve on the earth without any intervention by
an intelligent creator, there would have to have been all the necessary
building blocks of a protein with perfect conditions (perfect temperature,
perfect medium to incubate, etc.) such that these chemical reactions could
happen by chance. Evidence shows that
the early earth did not have any of the needed characteristics.[6]
According to one scientist, the possibility of random chance
creating a single protein by mere chance is 1 in 1060. He describes those odds as about as likely as
a tornado blowing through a junk yard and by chance assembling a fully
functional 747 – and this is the probability that a single protein could be
created by chance from inorganic substances.
The human body contains as many as 20,500 different kinds of proteins[7]. Scientist and Philosopher Stephen C. Meyer
estimates the chances of an entire protein molecule being constructed entirely
by chance is more like 1 in 10125 and a minimally complex cell would
need between three hundred and five hundred such protein molecules,[8]
and those molecules would have to be the right molecules to carry out the
function of life.
French statistician Emile Borel states that "phenomena with very low probabilities do not occur". He found that, on a cosmic
scale, any odds of less than 1
in 1050 will not happen.[9]
Evolutionists argue Borel’s principle does not apply because
given infinite time anything is possible and the longer the time that is
available the more likely it will occur.
The problem with this argument is that we know how long the universe has
existed – 13.77 billion years ( ± 0.059 billion years)[10].
Further, it is common scientific understanding that after the birth of the universe it took quite some time for the basic elements of the earth to come to exist and then for the earth to cool (from the initial heat of the Big Bang expansion) to a temperature which could sustain life.
Further, it is common scientific understanding that after the birth of the universe it took quite some time for the basic elements of the earth to come to exist and then for the earth to cool (from the initial heat of the Big Bang expansion) to a temperature which could sustain life.
“The only chemical elements created at the beginning of our universe were hydrogen, helium and lithium, the three lightest atoms in the periodic table. These elements were formed throughout the universe as a hot gas...Carbon and oxygen were not created in the Big Bang, but rather much later in stars. All of the carbon and oxygen in all living things are made in the nuclear fusion reactors that we call stars. The early stars are massive and short-lived. They consume their hydrogen, helium and lithium and produce heavier elements. When these stars die with a bang they spread the elements of life, carbon and oxygen, throughout the universe. New stars condense and new planets form from these heavier elements. The stage is set for life to begin.[11]
According to “The Physics Factbook”,
"The Pre-Cambrian encompasses nearly 90% of the Earth's history, stretching from 4.5 billion years ago, to 570 million years ago when the fossil evidence first reveals living cells."[12]This is the time period of the aforementioned Cambrian Explosion.
This leaves 3.5 billion years for the first biological cell to originate from non-biological materiels and as long as 570 million years for life to have
evolved from the earliest life forms to it’s current state.
That may seem like a long time, but 570 million years is a mere fraction
of the time required for such random chance to have occurred.[13]
There simply was not infinite time for this to have happened.
The bottom line is, it requires much more faith to believe
life on the Earth is a matter of random chance than to believe in an
intelligent Creator. Statistically,
life by mere chance is all but impossible[14];
there simply has not been enough time.
Without the possibility of evolution there is simply no other explanation for life on earth
than a creator.
Remember, science is trying to find the most probable truth and any hypothesis or theory is only as good as its latest test. Evidence is mounting that the existence of a creator is much more probable than the lack of one.
Remember, science is trying to find the most probable truth and any hypothesis or theory is only as good as its latest test. Evidence is mounting that the existence of a creator is much more probable than the lack of one.
DNA’s genetic code
The most significant biological evidence of a creator, by far, is DNA.
The most significant biological evidence of a creator, by far, is DNA.
A Cell’s DNA stores information in the form of a four
character digital code. The four
characters are the chemicals Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine. Scientists refer to them as [A], [G], [C],
and [T], respectively.
There are about six feet of DNA tightly coiled inside of
every one of our body’s one hundred trillion cells. This DNA contains all the information needed
to build every protein needed by the body (all cells are made up of proteins).
Properly arranging these four “bases” (A, G, C, and T) will
instruct the cell how to build different sequences of amino acids which are the
building blocks of proteins. Different
arrangements yield different amino acids.
Depending on the order of the amino acids, different forces
are applied to the protein making it bend into specific three dimensional
shapes. Each shape fits perfectly with
other proteins with complimentary shapes (somewhat like lego blocks).
These proteins linked together allow the proteins to perform a particular function.
If any of the amino acids is in the wrong order the protein
will not be properly created and will not build a protein which will fit with other proteins and will not
perform a function.
To build one protein, you typically need 1,200 to 2000 bases
(or letters).
Another important aspect of the ordering of amino acids to
build proteins is there are some slight affinities between various amino acids
and these affinities would preclude any functional cell if they bonded as per
their affinity. If they bonded as per their affinity, there would only ever be
a very few types of cells and the result would be some kind of a crystal of
salt where there is simply a repetitive sequence.
Finally, the bases must be arranged on the DNA strand in the
right order to function and none of the chemical bases has any particular
affinity with any other. Rather, the
order of the data is what is called “specified complexity”. An example of specified complexity is the
order of the letters in this paragraph.
They are not in any repetitive order, but randomly placed with a
specific complexity designed to communicate.
"Whenever we encounter these two elements – irregularity that’s specified by a set of functional requirements, which is what we call ‘specific complexity’ – we recognize this as information. And this kind of information is invariably the result of mind – not chance, not natural selection, and not self-organizational processes.… Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two properties. We know books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in the DNA also implies an intelligent source." [19]
This code is essentially a four letter programming language
which is strung together to create instructions to allow a cell to build
proteins which work together to perform some function (Francis Collins, the
head of the human genome project, calls DNA “The Language of God” in his book
of the same name). When all these
proteins work together they create an organ which, when combined with other organs,
create an organism.
DNA is God's programming language! Recent discoveries show that what was once thought to be "junk DNA" (previously thought to be vestigial left-overs from millions of years of evolution) is actually built-in redundancy in the code. God knew that mutations would occur over time and he built in a fail-safe.
The close resemblance of DNA to (humanly designed) computer code is so striking that it takes an amazing amount of faith to believe it is not the work of intelligence. To further illustrate the information bearing properties of DNA, scientists recently encoded an entire book into DNA. "...the book, ...includes 53,426 words, 11 images and one interactive Javascript app."
DNA is God's programming language! Recent discoveries show that what was once thought to be "junk DNA" (previously thought to be vestigial left-overs from millions of years of evolution) is actually built-in redundancy in the code. God knew that mutations would occur over time and he built in a fail-safe.
The close resemblance of DNA to (humanly designed) computer code is so striking that it takes an amazing amount of faith to believe it is not the work of intelligence. To further illustrate the information bearing properties of DNA, scientists recently encoded an entire book into DNA. "...the book, ...includes 53,426 words, 11 images and one interactive Javascript app."
We have seen that the existence of the universe has been shown scientifically to have
happened as a result of an intelligent and powerful being which exists outside
of our space and time.
Not only was the entire universe set in motion, but the very
most basic building blocks of life could not have been stitched together by any
other mechanism but an intelligent creator.
Naysayers will argue for any number of possible alternative
explanations all of which are more far-fetched than the last and all of which
require much more faith to believe than that of an intelligent creator– a God
who exists and interacts with His creation.
The scientific principle known as Occam’s Razor states “the
explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible,
eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the
explanatory hypothesis
or theory”. This is often paraphrased
as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects,
the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest
assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.[21]
Scientists who understand the science and choose to not
believe in an intelligent creator are not simply ignoring Occam’s Razor; they
are ignoring the best possible explanation.
Science need not preclude the possibility of a deity. If the goal of science is to find the truth
then the possibility of the existence of God should not be eliminated from the
start as it so often is.
The fact is, there are many scientists of faith who believe
and sometimes even evangelize that science and Christianity work hand and hand
together. Some of those quoted here even
say that science has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists and give science as the driving force behind their salvation experience.
A large percentage of scientists, even of the past, were and
are Christians, many of whom were professing agnostics or atheists before
delving into the Bible for answers to questions when confronted with such clear
Biblical statements that are constantly being confirmed by science as science
continues to change with new discoveries. Many books written today by
scientists dealing with science and the beginning of time are by just such
authors – people with PhDs in various fields of science, converted from
agnosticism or atheism to Christianity. These men include Gerald L. Schroeder,
PhD (Genesis and the Big Bang, The Science of God, and The Hidden Face of God); Francis S.
Collins, PhD (The Language of God);
Hugh Ross, PhD (The Creator and the
Cosmos, More than a Theory); Robert W. Faid, PhD (A
Scientific Approach to Christianity); and John H. Sailhamer, PhD (Genesis Unbound).[22]
So, the knowledge that there is a Creator God, and that He interacts with his creation, demands the questions: "How much does He interact with His creation?" and "What mechanisms does He use to interact with His creation?" Christians believe the answer to these questions is: The Bible.
In my next post I will begin answering the question: "How can we know that the Bible is accurate and true?"
Appendix A
What did Charles Darwin believe about the existence of a Creator?
What do you believe Charles Darwin says in his books Origin
of Species and Descent of Man? Does he make the case, as
most people believe, that all life evolved from nothing (abiogenesis)?
Most people assume that he did, but in fact he did not.
He makes the hypothesis that all species on the earth evolved
from a single or a few life forms. He specifically
does not consider the origins of life itself, nor does he deny the existence of
a creator.
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.[1] (emphasis mine)
Note Darwin's frequent use of the words "creator" and "created". He also assumes that the first species or two on the earth
were created by The Creator:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
Some
point to Darwin's Descent of Man as an indication of his lack of belief
in any kind of creator. His own words on the subject in that work
clearly contradict that notion as well.
Thus,
Darwin avoids a decision one way or the other of whether or not a
Creator exists and merely points out that there is no credible evidence
to suggest that man instinctively knows that an Omnipotent God exists (although some modern scholars would disagree with him).There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God.... The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed. [23]
He posits that as man's ability to reason evolved, so did his ability to think in the abstract. With this ability he then began to attempt to explain natural phenomena as the work of spirits which eventually evolved into a belief in a god or gods. He specifically states, however, that even though this is the case (in his opinion) this does not preclude the existence of a "Creator and Ruler of the universe" and even states that "some of the highest intellects that have ever existed" believe in such a God.
Some will then point to some of he private letters to show that Darwin did not believe in a creator.
Throughout the private letters that I have read as well as his two essays (Origin of Species and Descent of Man), he is emphatically non-committal as to the existence of a creator.
In his private letters, his primary argument against God is the existence of suffering in the world (dealt with in this series). His primary argument in support of God is how the universe itself could come into existence absent some kind of "beginner". He continually refers to his own waffling on the subject and insists that his opinion is of no importance.
Throughout his writings he consistently refers to man's inability to fully comprehend the truth in these matters, although he believes man should still try.
Thus, Charles Darwin was not convinced that a Creator God does not exist and describes himself as an agnostic.
Appendix B
What of the Biblical account of the universe being created in six days?Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. (NASB)2Pe 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.The idea that the earth has even been around for 4.5 billion years begs the obvious question from Christians (and others about the first and second chapters of Genesis where Moses states that the earth was created in six days.
Ancient Hebrew contains about 50,000 words, modern English, closer to a million. Thus a single word in Hebrew could mean many different things for which we have separate words in English. Further, most Hebrew words contain both literal and figurative meanings and the translator must decide whether the word should be translated literally or figuratively based on context.
The word for “day” in Genesis is “yome”. Strong’s Hebrew dictionary defines yome when used literally to mean the time between sunrise to sunset ("We can only play baseball during the day because the field has no lights") or from sunset to the following sunset ("A week is seven days long"), but figuratively it means “a space of time defined by an associated term” ("In my day, we would never talk back to a teacher").
It is likely that the word "yome", as expressed in Genesis 1, was meant to indicate an era or epoch (which could have taken any length of time) and that each era need not take the same length of time as any other era.
When taken into account with the full body of work (including supporting verses in Job, Psalms, etc.) I believe the figurative translation is most likely.There is nothing in the Biblical account of the origins of the Earth which contradict anything which has been discovered by science when interpreted in this way (remember the discussion of the two books in the introduction).
As a matter of fact, the order of the creation of life as recorded in the Bible exactly represents the order in which science says life came into existence on the planet. God, then, could have created life such that each creative work was left to flourish on the earth just long enough for his next creative work to maximally benefit from the previous creation. Man, then, was created at just the right time for humans to flourish on the earth, benefiting from all of the previous creative works.
Rather than each creative work occurring in consecutive 24 hour "days", they each occurred in consecutive "eras".
While it is truth that God is God and He certainly could have put the universe into fast-forward or created it in an old state, this is not in keeping with a God of truth and order.Supernova 1987a was observed in February 1987.Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle, and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.[17]This means that SN1987A went supernova 168,000 years ago (since a light-year is the distance light will travel in one year). So either the universe has existed for at least 168,000 years, or God made it look like a star which never existed was that far away and went supernova at some time in the past. In the latter case, God would be in the role of “tricking” us into believing that the star existed 168,000 years ago and God is a God of truth, not of trickery.[18] I find this evidence most compelling and this is the evidence which converted me from a young earth creationist to an old earth creationist.
Importantly, the earth being very old does not diminish the miraculous nature of God's creative works as the earth was being prepared for man to take ownership of it.
For an exhaustive work on the subject, I highly recommend the book "More Than a Theory" by Dr. Hugh Ross.
Appendix C
Theistic Evolution
When in Genesis the English Bible says "God created" or "God made", etc. different words are used to indicate differing means of causing something to come into being.
Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning, God created" -> (created = bara = "shaped": Strong's H1254)Based on the literal reading of the original Hebrew, it is possible that God created certain things explicitly in that he caused them to "come to pass" which I take to mean "come into being" as in Genesis 1:3.
Genesis 1:3 - "Let there be light" ->"Let there come to pass: light" (be = haya = come to pass: Strong's H1961)
Genesis 1:11 - "Let the Earth bring forth grass" -> "Let the earth sprout grass" (bring forth = dasha = sprout: Strong's H1876)
Genesis 1:21 - "And God created the great sea creatures" -> "And God shaped the great sea creatures" (Created = bara = shaped Strongs H1254)
Genesis 1:24 - "God said let the earth bring forth living creature" (Bring forth = yatsa: Strong's H3318)
Genesis 1:25 - "God made" -> "God accomplished" (Made = asah = accomplish: Strong's H6213)
Genesis 1:26 - "Let us make man" (Make = asah = accomplish: Strong's 6213)
Genesis 1:27 - "God created man" -> "God shaped man" (created = bara = shaped. Strong's H1254)
Genesis 2:22 - "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman" -> "built he a woman" (made = banah = built: Strong's H1129) [aside: rib here is a literal rib also used for a plank in a door, etc.)
Since the initial elements of the Big Bang were gasses which produced stars which quickly exploded to create the heavier elements. It is in keeping with Big Bang cosmology and with the Bible that the first thing that was created "ex nihilo" (from nothing) was light.
Since other words used into this text translated into English as created, made, or brought forth have literal meanings including shaped, formed, etc. it is possible that what God did during the creation eras was to cause the genetic changes to happen within a species which caused speciation to occur.
The most important of these speciation events would be that of man. Once the vessel of man evolved, that which made him special would then have been "Imago Dei" (the image of God). Thus making him different from all the other animals in that man would be the only animal to bear the image of God.
It is a bit more difficult to read of the creation of woman based on this same understanding, but there are those who have endeavored to do just that.
The belief that God accomplished his good and perfect will through the process of evolution is known as Theistic Evolutionism. Possibly the most important proponent of this worldview is Francis Collins, former head of the human genome project.
Bibliography
- Darwin’s Black Box, Michael J. Behe, The Free Press, 1996.
- The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder, PhD., The Free Press, 1992.
- The Case for Christ, Lee Stroebel, Zondervan, 1998.
- The Case for Faith, Lee Stroebel, 2000.
- The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, 2004.
- On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859.
- Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of The Diety, collected from the Appearances of Nature, William Paley, D.D, Lincoln, Edmands & Co., 1831.
- The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin, 1871.
[1] Origin
of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859.
Page 222.
[2] This
phrase was not in the original 1859 version of the book, but was added by the
author to the 1872 version just prior to his death.
[3] Origin
of Species, Charles Darwin, 1872, final
paragraph.
[4] Genesis
30:25-43
[5] Survival
of the fittest contends that genetic mutations leading to a stronger animal
will cause the animal to survive over a weaker animal and pass that trait on to
its offspring, whereas, genetic traits causing a weakening of the animal will
result in that animal not surviving to pass the trait on to any offspring.
[6] The Case
for Faith, Lee Strobel, Page 96-97.
[7]
The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, Page 220.
[8] The Case
for a Creator, Lee Strobel, Page 228.
[9]
Probability and Life, Emile Borel, 1962.
Borel, himself, argued against using his criteria for creationism purposes. He was attempting to answer "Infinite Monkey Theorem", the probability that a monkey sitting in front of a typewriter, given enough time tapping on random keys could end up typing out the full works of Shakespeare. Considering all the letters needed to deliver such a work exists on the typewriter, the changes are possible, however slim that it could happen.
Clearly, Borel's principle does not apply in all situations. A person who rolls a 10 sided die 51 times has a 1 in 1051 chance of rolling the sequence that he did.
Atheists like to say that the formula produced by Borel does not apply to creationism, but Borel himself in his book "Probability and Certainty" (circa 1950) says that all the variables concerning the origin of life are not known and thus the probability that life could not come into existence from non-life cannot be calculated. He did not, however, say it could not be calculated if the variables were known.
The following is quoted from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html:
From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:
Now, 67+ years later, we know a lot more about what is needed than Borel did in 1950.
Borel, himself, argued against using his criteria for creationism purposes. He was attempting to answer "Infinite Monkey Theorem", the probability that a monkey sitting in front of a typewriter, given enough time tapping on random keys could end up typing out the full works of Shakespeare. Considering all the letters needed to deliver such a work exists on the typewriter, the changes are possible, however slim that it could happen.
Clearly, Borel's principle does not apply in all situations. A person who rolls a 10 sided die 51 times has a 1 in 1051 chance of rolling the sequence that he did.
Atheists like to say that the formula produced by Borel does not apply to creationism, but Borel himself in his book "Probability and Certainty" (circa 1950) says that all the variables concerning the origin of life are not known and thus the probability that life could not come into existence from non-life cannot be calculated. He did not, however, say it could not be calculated if the variables were known.
The following is quoted from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html:
From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:
The Problem of Life.
In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.
When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?
It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.
Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.
Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.Essentially, Borel says the processes involved are too complex for us to understand, thus we don't know if probability calculus can solve those problems.
Now, 67+ years later, we know a lot more about what is needed than Borel did in 1950.
[10] As
measured by the NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
[11] The
original Big Bang only See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_life.html
[12] http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/RonHuggins.shtml
[13]
How long would be required to evolve from a single protein to a modern human is
impossible to calculate since no undisputed case of evolution from one species to another
has ever been found, so we have no undisputed frame of reference.
A paper published on phys.org in 2011, however, shows that lasting evolutionary change takes about 1 million years. Notably, the change noted here is a change in body size which is an example of adaptation and not speciation.
Considering life has only been possible on the planet for 3.5 billion years and complex life for about 570 million years. We are asked to believe that life evolved from the organisms present on the earth 570 million years ago to a modern human in about 570 iterations.
Or more difficult to believe would be that modern humans evolved from the earliest single celled orgamisms into modern humans in just 3,850 iterations.
A paper published on phys.org in 2011, however, shows that lasting evolutionary change takes about 1 million years. Notably, the change noted here is a change in body size which is an example of adaptation and not speciation.
Considering life has only been possible on the planet for 3.5 billion years and complex life for about 570 million years. We are asked to believe that life evolved from the organisms present on the earth 570 million years ago to a modern human in about 570 iterations.
Or more difficult to believe would be that modern humans evolved from the earliest single celled orgamisms into modern humans in just 3,850 iterations.
[14] There
is no such thing as a statistical impossibility. There is always a possibility, however
miniscule, that something could occur - a possibility of 1 in 10127
still leaves that “one in” chance. It is
this possibility, however slight, to which evolutionists cling to claim that
evolution is responsible for life in the universe.
[15] The
Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder.
[16] The
Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder, Page 58.
[17] Panagia, N.. "New Distance Determination to the LMC". Memorie
della Societa Astronomia Italiana 69: 225. Bibcode 1998MmSAI..69..225P
[18] Psalm
31:5
[19] Dr.
Stephen C. Meyer, quoted in The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, page 234.
[20] Darwin’s Black Box,
Michael J. Behe, page 232-233.
[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
[22] The
Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder.
[23] The Decent of Man, Charles Darwin, 'Belief in God-Religion.'
[24] In recent years, the definition of "species" has changed quite a bit. In fact there is a taxonomy board which looks at different plants and animals and makes the decision as to whether this is or isn't a different species. The definition changes regularly and there is quite a lot of arguing amongst board members and other scientists about how various plants and/or animals are classified.
The definition of a species used to roughly be "any animal that could not breed with another animal", so for speciation to have occurred a species would have to have evolved from one animal to a different animal which could not longer breed with the original. Newer definitions have changed all this, however, to the point that the lines are very fuzzy between what constitutes a new species.
This changing of the definition of what a species really is gives fodder to those who claim that speciation can occur, perhaps it can if you change the definition of what speciation means so that it is no longer a problem.
[25] Darwin explains that the reason one finds a species with a supposed common ancestor which is so different with no intermediate forms found in the fossil record is likely due to the ancestor being long-lived as a strong variation which then gives way to a transitional species which has a much smaller population and which is quickly driven to extinction by their progeny. Some time later another particularly strong species evolves which attains a much greater population.
Because of both the relatively small populations of these intermediate species as well as the predator/prey relationship resulting in many of these being consumed by their predators, they reason they are not found in the fossil record is that there are so few of them and the fossil record is incomplete.
[23] The Decent of Man, Charles Darwin, 'Belief in God-Religion.'
[24] In recent years, the definition of "species" has changed quite a bit. In fact there is a taxonomy board which looks at different plants and animals and makes the decision as to whether this is or isn't a different species. The definition changes regularly and there is quite a lot of arguing amongst board members and other scientists about how various plants and/or animals are classified.
The definition of a species used to roughly be "any animal that could not breed with another animal", so for speciation to have occurred a species would have to have evolved from one animal to a different animal which could not longer breed with the original. Newer definitions have changed all this, however, to the point that the lines are very fuzzy between what constitutes a new species.
This changing of the definition of what a species really is gives fodder to those who claim that speciation can occur, perhaps it can if you change the definition of what speciation means so that it is no longer a problem.
[25] Darwin explains that the reason one finds a species with a supposed common ancestor which is so different with no intermediate forms found in the fossil record is likely due to the ancestor being long-lived as a strong variation which then gives way to a transitional species which has a much smaller population and which is quickly driven to extinction by their progeny. Some time later another particularly strong species evolves which attains a much greater population.
Because of both the relatively small populations of these intermediate species as well as the predator/prey relationship resulting in many of these being consumed by their predators, they reason they are not found in the fossil record is that there are so few of them and the fossil record is incomplete.
No comments:
Post a Comment