Here is an article from the 'Stand to Reason' ministry. This is why I evolution and creation are incompatible. Naturalism is about the evidence, it is science and belief in a creator is just religion? Naturalism is a philosophy and evolution is a fact in micro and unprovable in macro!
Dear Friend,
Many were stunned to read the opening sentence of an article on the front page of San Diego's Union-Tribune: "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution," it read, "Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist, telling scientists that Charles Darwin's theories are sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God."[1]
In his message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope said that faith and science can co-exist. I agree with this wholeheartedly, but not for some of the reasons Pope John Paul gives.[2]
I think the facts of science and the teaching of Genesis are not at odds, but that scientists have let their philosophy distort their conclusions. The Pope disagrees. He thinks the biblical literalists have erred, not the scientists, and that Darwin's theories are "sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God."
Think about this statement for a moment. Isn't it odd to say that a scientific theory is sound only if we acknowledge God's involvement? A bad scientific theory can't be transformed into a good one by baptizing it with God words. And a good scientific theory--one that adequately explains the facts--stands on its own merits and doesn't need the baptism. In adherence to Ockham's Razor, why complicate the equation by adding God, when a simpler solution is adequate?
Charles Darwin's theory either does the job or it doesn't. Invoking God works no magic one way or the other. He's superfluous, which is exactly the point of evolution.
Designed by Chance
The Pope's unlikely amalgam of evolution and the Bible is called theistic evolution--the view that God used evolution to "create" all the life-forms of the world, including man. At some point during the evolution of the human animal, God infused it with a rational soul.
Theistic evolution was birthed by two impulses. The first was a desire to cling to the Bible as a source of truth about the world. The second was intimidation by the ruling paradigm in modern biological science: evolution.
Christians, cowed by what they were told was growing scientific evidence for evolution, yet unwilling to sacrifice their commitment to the Scriptures, naively declared that both must be true.
Those, like Pope John Paul II, who are tempted to marry Darwinian evolution with some form of biblical creationism would do well to consider the words of Richard Dawkins, Oxford zoologist, and author of The Blind Watchmaker. He said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
These are no idle words. Dawkins is one of the world's foremost apologists for evolution. His point is the same as mine. If Darwin's theories are sound (as the Pope said) and explain the full development of life without any need for a divine creator, then any further appeal to God is fictional, wishful thinking.
Dawkins understands this, and so does the rest of the scientific world. Stephen Jay Gould, the famous Harvard paleontologist and popular writer on evolution put it this way:
No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature, although Newton's clock-winding God might have set up this machinery at the beginning of time and then let it run. No 'vital forces' propel evolutionary change, and whatever we think of God, His existence is not manifest in the products of nature.[3] [emphasis added]
Douglas Futuyma, author of the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook,[4] writes, "If the world and its creatures developed purely by material, physical forces, it could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal....Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms--but this seems to be the message of evolution."[5] [emphasis added]
George Gaylord Simpson, author of The Meaning of Evolution, and one of the leading founding figures in the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis wrote, "Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or materialistic factors....Therefore, mankind is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."[6] [emphasis added]
If Darwinism can easily be baptized, why do these men speak this way? If evolution can co-exist with creation, then why is Dawkins so confident that Darwin has given intellectual credibility to atheism?
Darwin's theory seized the day for one reason and one reason only. It wasn't because of scientific data. The fossil record was virtually untouched at the time, and little was known about the complexity of life. Indeed, the science of genetics was completely unknown in 1859 when Darwin published The Origin of Species. Instead, Darwin shook the world because he offered a plausible, atheistic explanation for the existence and development of life. Evolution was appealing precisely because the need for God was eliminated.
Evolutionists like Gould are willing to concede that many scientists believe in God. Believe whatever you want behind the closed doors of your churches, they say. Practice your religious alchemy in the privacy of your own homes if you want. Just don't suggest your God has anything to do with the real world. When it comes to the real world, the fact of the matter is life evolved without God.
Gould is comfortable with his colleagues believing in God, but when they suggest that God used evolution, he is the first to object. "You don't understand evolution," he says. "Evolution is by chance, not design."
Gould is right on this point. Theistic evolutionists are fond of saying, "The Bible doesn't say how God created, just that God created. God could have used evolution." This shows a misunderstanding of both evolution and the Genesis account.
First, the Bible does say how God created. The first 56 verses of Genesis are devoted to a tremendous amount of detail that would be unnecessary if God simply "used" evolution. The first two chapters tell us God created in specific stages by fiat acts and not by gradualism. The human species began with a miracle, producing a fully formed adult man and woman. Further, what does it mean that God "rested" if the evolution God "worked" with is still occurring?
Second, there's an equivocation with the word "evolution." In general, evolution simply means change over time. If this general notion was the only issue, there would be no debate. We see radical change over the creation "week" starting with simple life and graduating to more complex forms in the biosphere. It wouldn't matter how God accomplished that change, as long as He was the one causing the changes.
What's at issue here is not evolution in this modest sense, but Darwinian evolution. The neo-Darwinian synthesis necessarily entails a particular mechanism that determines (an important word) which changes are reproduced in the next generation. This mechanism is called natural selection. Without it there is no evolution in the Darwinian sense.
In natural selection, specific circumstances in the environment allow a particular individual to survive and reproduce, passing its mutated genes on to the next generation. Serendipitous conditions in nature make the "choice," not God. If nature is selecting, then God is not selecting. The two are at odds with each other. What could be more obvious?
Suppose I wanted a straight flush for a hand of poker. I could either pull the cards out of the deck individually and "design" the hand, or I could shuffle the cards randomly and see if the flush is dealt to me. It wouldn't make any sense, though, to "design" the hand by shuffling the deck and dealing. There's no way to insure the results.
In the same way, either God designs the details, or nature shuffles the deck and natural selection chooses the winning hand. The mechanism is either conscious and intentional (design), or unconscious and unintentional (natural selection). Creation is teleological; it has a purpose, a goal, an end. Evolution is accidental, like a straight flush dealt to a poker rookie.
Theistic evolution means design by chance. That's like a square circle--there is no such thing. Blending evolution with creation is like putting a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn't fit.
And there's no reason to make it fit, because the general theory of evolution is false. With all due respect, the Pope is wrong. Here's how I know.
Chance or Design?
If the scientific evidence doesn't support Darwinism, if the ruling paradigm is seriously flawed, then there's no reason to flirt with theistic evolution. Here are two lines of thinking--captured in two questions--that destroy the "scientific" case for evolution.
Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker by making a stunning concession. "Biology," he writes, "is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Dawkins admits that living things appear to be designed. In his most recent work, Climbing Mount Improbable, he even calls living organisms "designoids."
Dawkins then warns us not to be deceived by appearances. Design is an illusion, he tells us. Living things were actually crafted by the "blind watchmaker"--mutation and natural selection.
Here's my first question. If living things look designed--if the empirical evidence suggests purpose--then how do you know they weren't designed? Nothing in the evidence itself demands an unintelligent, evolutionary explanation. Philosophy demands that conclusion, not science.
The philosophy of naturalism is the view that all phenomena must have an explanation based on natural law. In this view, one doesn't conclude God is not a factor; he assumes it prior to the evidence--a priori. However, the proper sequence is to prove the adequacy of evolution first. Here's how to do that.
In order to show that Darwinism is fact, one must prove at least two things. There may be more, but two things are absolutely foundational. If neither has been proved, then evolution cannot be asserted as fact.
First, one must show that life developed spontaneously from non-life (abiogenesis). The game can't get rolling without the kick-off. There was a time when life did not exist, after which life did exist. Somewhere in between, life came into existence, and it did so spontaneously--that is, without the help of creative intelligence.
Second, life must change from simple forms to more complex forms over time--transition. This is the well-known "tree of evolution," branching out with increasing variety and increasing complexity.
My second objection to evolution focuses on the first issue, abiogenesis. How exactly did life come from non-life? What was the specific process that accounts for the complex arrangement of inanimate matter into a life form that grows, metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces (the four criteria for biological life)?
The answer: Nobody knows. Nobody knows how life can come from non-life. This fact is acknowledged by all hands. Alternative views have been suggested, but each is faced with insurmountable problems. Further research and discovery has only served to complicate things. The more we know about biochemistry, genetics, information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing, the more intractable the problem of abiogenesis has become.
Evolution is called a "fact," but you can't have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis. However, no one has even come close to showing that life can come from non-life. Now, here is my second question: If you don't know how it happened, how do you know that it happened?
The answer I get is always the same: Because we're here. If we're here, then we must have evolved.
Once again, this isn't about facts; it's about philosophy. Evolution is assumed by science, not proved by science.
Catching the Gingerbread Man
The fabled Gingerbread Man thought he was safe crossing the river riding on the back of the fox. As the water rose, he sought a more secure perch straddling its snout. The next instant, the fox was licking its lips.
Though evolution is inherently hostile to creation, some--like the Pope--have been tricked into thinking it's a friend. Every concession brings us closer to the mouth of the fox. Once we concede that evolution is true and then try to patch up our theism by saying God used it, the fox is already licking his lips.
Friends, there is no need for any of us to flirt with evolution. Darwinism is false. It can't even get out of the starting blocks. The world looks designed because it is designed, just like the Bible says. It's as simple as that.
From Greg Koukl
Stand to Reason Ministries
Why God Cannot Have Used Evolution....
by Shining One 107 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
stillajwexelder
So how did Noah and his sons collect 850,000 pairs of insects that are known to exist - or is it possible that some of the insects have evolved?
-
ozziepost
Shining One:
Why are you C&P articles? You did that yesterday too I seem to recall, or was it the day before?
Anyway, how's about discussing it yourself. It's an interesting topic, one which was discussed in a sermon I heard a couple of weeks back. The thrust of that sermon was to show how and why creation and evolution are perfectly compatible.
-
tetrapod.sapien
These are no idle words. Dawkins is one of the world's foremost apologists for evolution. His point is the same as mine. If Darwin's theories are sound (as the Pope said) and explain the full development of life without any need for a divine creator, then any further appeal to God is fictional, wishful thinking.
that is actually well put. i agree with this, you know? the politically correct side of me wants to say it's not true. but the realistic side of me says that it is true.
-
trevor
shining one
You have made a thoughtful post. I would like to comment on how I see the part evolution plays in our world.
We talk about the evolution of the motor car - but that does not mean the process was or is without intelligence. In the case of the motor car, the intelligence is applied externally. In living things the intelligence is in the life force which dwells in all living things and works from within.
You talk of evolution as a past-tense event. The whole universe is still evolving and the process is an ongoing reality that occupies each present moment. Hence the accurate term for God is ‘I AM.’
There is no end to advancement, adaptation or evolution of living things. The bible indicates that all major changes happen in an instant through the power of God. In reality change takes time, but time only exists in our minds which are not the true reality.
The power that makes these changes is already in us. We call this amazing reality - being alive. This does not make the idea of God redundant, it just means that most peoples idea of God is based on false idea of how the I AM sustains life.
-
DanTheMan
My second objection to evolution focuses on the first issue, abiogenesis. How exactly did life come from non-life? What was the specific process that accounts for the complex arrangement of inanimate matter into a life form that grows, metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces (the four criteria for biological life)?
The answer: Nobody knows. Nobody knows how life can come from non-life. This fact is acknowledged by all hands. Alternative views have been suggested, but each is faced with insurmountable problems.Even if scientists haven't figured that part of it out, it doesn't mean they never will, so to use the word "insurmountable" is bullying the point.
-
Abaddon
I believe the writer creates a false dillema. He creates a "all-or-nothing" choice; either god created the Universe in the literal, Biblically-described manner, or it all happened via Evolution.
This is so false and simplistic I can't take the rest of it very seriously, although he writes reasonably well. Well enough it's easy to forget the Emperor has no clothes, especially if you really are determined to believe that those are buttons on the breast pockets of a pink shirt and not nipples...
To illustrate why I believe the arguement is false and simplistic it, for example;
- It starts by critiquing a non-scientific religious understanding of science, and then using that to criticise science, which is obviously daft, as science cannot control what non-scientific people do with it.
- Gives no consideration to alternative Creation stories (thus presupposing that a religion held by a minority of the Earth's inhabitants happens to be right despite the lack of concrete evidence).
- Doesn't allow for the acount being metaphorical or allegorical in any way (yet this stance is taken by people who will often in the same sentence imply or directly define other parts of the Bible that sound equally fantastic to modern ears as metaphors or allegories).
- Doesn't allow for a Creator "blowing on the dice". This is actually the position taken by most fully-educated Christians outside of the USA, although they would have varying descriptions and understanding of god using mechanistic processes. This is especially well illustrated by the standard Creationist canard of mixing abiogenisis in with evolution.
- Shakles the 'truth' of how the world came about to an account very obviously deeply enculturated by the culture it comes from. The misogyny and violence of the Pentateuch are obviously cultural artifacts (or alternately Biblegod is violent and misogynistic). Violence is bad and women are not dirty. If the Pentateuch endorses opposite views as regards women and violence to that any reasonable person knows is true due to it's culture of origin, it is not particulary unreasonable to suggest the Creation account must be similarly flawed. Any reasonable person knows violence and misogyny are wrong due to the evidence they are wrong. There is just as much evidence to show a literal interpretation of the Creation account is utterly vacuous and lacking in credibility.
- Ignores totally the very stong chance that 'god' was a pseudo-scientific force invented in antiquity and endlessly reinvented or embroidered. Just as we now know the scientiric reasons for lightening (it is Thor), we know the scientific reasons for lots of other things that used to be assigned to the psuedo-scientific force of god.
- Willfully ignores the lack of evidence of origin for god.
It's 'can't see the wood for the treeism' is nicely exemplified by this;
Theistic evolution was birthed by two impulses. The first was a desire to cling to the Bible as a source of truth about the world. The second was intimidation by the ruling paradigm in modern biological science: evolution.
Intimidation? What rubbish; lack of other credible theories, total lack of evidence for the literal Biblical version of events and a desire to create an envelope of belief that could cope with those factors lead to 'theistic evolution', or "INTELLIGENT DESIGN", which we all know is a self-refuting theory as it demands a designer for a design but explains no designer for the designer which under its own demands it requires. A theory that disappears up its own fundament with a rather quant ploping noise
One could equally say;
Creationism and Intelligent Design was birthed by one impulse. The desire to cling to the Bible as a source of truth about the world despite all evidence pointing to it being exactly what you'd expect when you get a Bronze Age goatherd to write a creation account.. Acceptence of the non-literal nature of the Bible would 'open the door' to an awful lot of the Bible being similarly interpreteted, and thus would lead to a permenant and substancial reduction in the power religionists were able to exert over others. Thus it is to be resisted at all costs.
-
coolhandluke
trevor ~
We talk about the evolution of the motor car - but that does not mean the process was or is without intelligence. In the case of the motor car, the intelligence is applied externally. In living things the intelligence is in the life force which dwells in all living things and works from within.
There is no end to advancement, adaptation or evolution of living things. The bible indicates that all major changes happen in an instant through the power of God. In reality change takes time, but time only exists in our minds which are not the true reality.
These two statements are not congruent. Evolution of the motor car is constantly an improvement on design and functionality. If Gods creation is as he said it was "good" or perfect what need is there for improvement? Secondarily if all major changes happen instantly, why don't we see evolution in the span of a generation if that is your theory? Why does it take centuries at times to see marked change?
-
AlmostAtheist
I would agree with Ozzie that there's no need to post an entire article. A link to the article and your thoughts on it would be more appreciated.
Instead, Darwin shook the world because he offered a plausible, atheistic explanation for the existence and development of life. Evolution was appealing precisely because the need for God was eliminated.
The above quote makes it sound as if atheists are in the same uncomfortable boat as theists -- that of being visited by facts on a daily basis that challenge their world view and grasping around for any excuse to cling to their views. "If there's really a god, then why..." But that isn't the case. As an atheist, my world view is not challenged by the facts, it's shaped by it. Rather than "remaining no part of the world", I am fully integrated with it. It's the difference between lying back on a fine sand beach and lying back on a gravel driveway.
Dave
-
jstalin
Even if scientists haven't figured that part of it out, it doesn't mean they never will, so to use the word "insurmountable" is bullying the point.