Something that I was thinking about the other day: some people are familiar with Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. Basically it states that because people believe false things that help survivability (such as "god", from the naturalist's perspective), evolution does not favor minds that recognize truth, but minds that recognize how to survive- if a belief just happens to be true, it is pure coincidence.
However, I was contemplating the multiverse (or multiple worlds) hypothesis, and it seems that this only compounds the problem. For those uninitiated, multiverse theory states that our universe is not the only universe there is. There are many other universes that do exist; however, our instruments cannot detect them because they are outside our universe. This theory comes in several flavors, but the one I am talking about is the one that is capable of explaining the fine-tuning and design in the universe, along with being an alternative to God as the "banger" that the cosmological argument requires. In order to account for the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe, some naturalists posit that there are an infinite (or near infinite) number of universes, each possessing different constants of physics. Ours just happens to be the one that is amenable to advanced life, and that is why we exist to observe the "fine-tuning".
I am really excited to bring you this review. Dr. Hugh Ross and the Reasons to Believe (RTB) scholar team are the means that Christ used to keep this modernist thinker from completely giving up on the Christian faith about seven years ago. You can read about this more on my page Nature vs. Scripture. Reasons to Believe provides a scientific and Biblical model of the creation and history of the universe that is testable. They have produced many books and papers outlining details of different aspects of the model. They have not really produced a single resource that provides a quick overview of the model for those who might be curious and need an introduction.
That's where More Than a Theory comes in. This book was written as an introduction to the various aspects of the testable model. It frequently refers the reader to the other resources for more details. Throughout this review I will include links to their other books and articles on their website that I am familiar with that go into some more details. Dr. Ross also produced a series of podcasts that briefly go over the contents of each chapter. I will include a link to each episode at the end of each chapter's description. These episodes will give you a better description of the contents of the chapters plus what Dr. Ross specifically want the reader to focus on for each chapter.
Most people do not really think to ask this question about Evolution. However, it has become quite the important question in determining the validity of the paradigm. In this post when I refer to "evolution" I am referring to macroevolution (see my post "Useful or Useless Evolutionary Terms"). If I am talking about microevolution, I will make the distinction.
As I discussed in the previously cited post, random mutation does happen, and natural selection does operate on those mutations. This observation has been extrapolated over time into the theory of Evolution. According to the paradigm, life began as a single-cell organism, and through the process noted, we arrive at the state of life today (complex, mega-multicellular organisms).
This is going to build a bit more on my previous post "Naturalism and Human Equality". Naturalism demands that all living entities be ascribed equal value.
This includes bugs and plants. Why should we ascribe greater value to humans? Why not whales, because of their size, or certain trees, because of their long life-spans? If evolution is to be used as a guide, then we must conclude that survivability is the ultimate ascription for value. We could look at survivability of an individual or of an entire species, and we still would not conclude that humans are on top, though.
I want to look at a couple terms that have been added to the evolutionary vocabulary, but are hotly contested:
Microevolution- evolutionary changes that result in differences within a species or genus.
Macroevolution- series of microevolutionary changes that result in a new genus, family, order, etc...
The other day, a naturalist claimed that no such distinction is necessary. The argument is that there is a long string of microevolutionary changes from species to species, from genus to genus, family to family, etc...; macroevolutionary changes are a series of microevolutionary changes that result in a new species, genus, family, etc...; thus macroevolutionary changes are really the same as microevolutionary changes over time. Since they are ultimately the same, there is no need to distinguish between the two terms. This person further claimed that even if they allowed the distinction in terms, the fact that small changes over time is undisputed, means that many changes over time is proven; microevolution is undisputed, therefore a lot of microevolution (macroevolution) is proven.
Last week, I explained how the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm cannot explain the existence of equal human value. This week, I will build upon last week and show why it cannot explain intrinsic value either. If you have not read last week's post, you will probably be lost.
The fact that we do survive is a product of the Imago Dei. We possess a mind that is capable of simple and complex thought- both of which can be and are used for survival. Unfortunately, man is fallen. One of the results of this fallen nature is the fact that man is self-focused (prideful and narcissistic). This causes man to focus acutely on his survival (survival is not wrong in itself, but the desire for it causes many to make choices based on a certain level of paranoia). Man will use this mind to come up with "ways of survival" that violate the intrinsic, equal value of other human beings (typically the illogical conclusion is one that violates another human life. They "reason" that it is the only option when it really is not). Murder is an example. In Christianity, murder is a sin because it is a direct insult to God, Himself ("I think so little of God and so highly of myself, that I will destroy a reflection of His value and His nature to further my own existence.").
I find it extremely interesting that many naturalists promote human equality. Human equality is a Judeo-Christian concept that is foreign to any worldview that must rely upon naturalistic evolution to explain the existence of the human race. Here's what I mean:
One of the major pillars of naturalistic, evolution is "survival of the fittest". This simply means that the lifeforms most fit for a certain environment will propagate their offspring into the next generation; lifeforms that possess any feature that inhibits their survival, will eventually die off. Value is assigned based on this survivability.
In Part 2 I gave a clarification of my first essay (Part 1). Each week, the professor would ask us a question about what we learned; she called it a "Reflection on Learning." These were supposed to be short (max 400 words). I asked her if she would allow me more space to develop my thoughts more effectively; she had no problem with that request (thank God!).
This is "Reflection on Learning" from the second week (I didn't include the first in this series because it didn't include anything I haven't already posted).
Since it was not required to be in any specific format (APA), I did include some links. The section in red is the question posed.
In Part 1 I discussed the four primary perspectives in Psychology. That essay was submitted before any interaction with the professor.
The feedback of my essay is the context for the majority of what I have in this post
In her feedback, the professor noted some areas that she did not understand. She was unclear what I meant by "biological cousin" when referring to the Evolutionary Perspective and two phrases in one of my sentences threw her off.
The context for the last paragraph posted here was a discussion in class- I was discussing the Cognitive Perspective and why I thought that it was superior to the other perspectives. I made the mistake of using the term "superior". She said that she did not want us to think of one perspective as more valid than or "superior" to the other perspectives, since we were just being introduced to the material and had not been exposed to evidence for and against each one.
Though it was not required of me, I replied to her feedback and criticism in an effort to clarify my points and terms.
If you haven't yet, please read the introduction to this series. It will fill you in on what you're getting into by reading this post.
Okay, this is the first essay that I wrote for my PSY-300 course. This essay was due before the first night of class, so there was no interaction with my professor before I wrote it. We had the typical reading assignment which is the main source for the material. I start out with a quick description of what Psychology is, then I describe the four primary perspectives that drive the discipline. We were not required to provide a critique of them, but I did anyway. As I mentioned in the introduction post, this was originally written in APA format, so I have edited it for emphasis and hyperlinks to help you along. Please follow the links if you want to get a tighter grasp of what I am talking about.
I noticed something the other day. I was doing some research about some basic genetic theory (how genes are passed and expressed), and I see something that looks to be an issue for the evolutionary (macroevolutionary) paradigm. Please read last week's post "Is Evolution Repeatable?".
Most people do not really think to ask this question about Evolution. However, it has become quite the important question in determining the validity of the paradigm. In this post when I refer to "evolution" I am referring to "macroevolution" (see my post "How Did It All Happen? Part 4- Evolution? Really?"). If I am talking about microevolution (see same post above), I will make the distinction.
As I discussed in the previously cited post, random mutation does happen, and natural selection does operate on those mutations. This observation has been extrapolated into the theory of Evolution. According to the paradigm life began as a single-cell organism, and through the process noted we arrive at the state of life today (complex, mega-multicellular organisms).
In my investigation of the Creation/Evolution debate within the Christian community, I have come across several different views. The most common views among the scientifically-minded Christians seem to be the views of theistic evolution and old-earth creation.
For the purposes of this post, I'm only going to give a brief, surface comparison: They both posit that the Christian God is the ultimate designer. Theistic evolution states that God guided the natural, evolutionary process. Old-earth creation states that God performed many acts of special creation.
Theistic evolution accepts the idea of common descent. While old-earth creation leans almost totally (I'll have a post on this qualifier later) on common design rather than common descent.
In my research, I have not been able to find any specific direct comparisons of the evidence of the two competing ideas in one place. So, I emailed a question to Reasons to Believe to get an answer. Here's the question I sent:
"Please discuss common ancestry vs. common design. What evidence do they hold in common, and what evidence is unique to each side?"
Both Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross tackle this question on their podcast I Didn't Know That this week. It is the first question answered on this episode(4:50 into the file), and the second question is related. You can listen to it here.
If you have a question about science and/or the Bible, you can email Reasons to Believe at ask@reasons.org and listen for an answer on their podcasts. They also have a hotline that you can call to ask questions; it is open daily from 5:00pm-7:00pm PST.
If you have not already, please read my post "Nature vs. Scripture" before continuing.
In Part 1 of this series, I showed some basic evidence about the Big Bang theory. In Part 2, I separated the Big Bang from Evolution. In Part 3, I showed how the Bible is compatible with billions of years and answered a couple objections. In Part 4, I'm going to go more into the theory of Evolution.
Okay first, I need to define a couple terms: "evolution" (little-e), and "Evolution" (big-E).
Simply put, "evolution" is a change with respect to time. And "Evolution" is the theory that states that all life changed over time from simple to complex.
Little-e evolution is pretty much a no-brainer. These types of changes are extremely small changes within a species that allow the species advantages. This level is well established scientifically. An example would be a change in camouflage or Darwin's finches. It does take place via random gene mutations that natural selection acts upon. Keep in mind that the overwhelmingly vast majority of random mutations are harmful to the organism. It is rare that they actually help- but it does happen. "Natural selection" is really a fancy scientific phrase for explaining the process by which organisms are eliminated (killed) because of the disadvantage of a random mutation. This level of evolution does not lead to new species nor does it have any form of genuine creative power. If I refer to it again, it will be called "microevolution" (meaning- small scale). Microevolution is also referred to as "adaptation".
Big-E Evolution is where things get hairy and must not be confused with microevolution. There are two kinds: Naturalistic and Theistic.
Naturalistic Evolution relies totally on nature. There are three components responsible for complex life: Common Ancestry, Random Mutation, and Natural Selection.
Both Naturalistic and Theistic Evolutionists accept microevolution. However, Theistic Evolutionists accept only one of the three portions of Naturalistic Evolution to explain life's changes beyond what microevolution's limits. That is Common Ancestry. Theistic Evolution states that God intervened to do what Naturalistic Evolutionists rely on random mutation and natural selection to accomplish.
Dr. Michael Behe puts together a pretty solid case against random mutation and natural selection for being responsible for complex life in his book The Edge of Evolution. Behe does support common ancestry, so he would fall under the category of Theistic Evolutionist. He provides some evidence, such as common genes, common "junk DNA" and common anatomical features. Behe believes, though, that a Designer is responsible for the precise mutations and jumps that natural mutations cannot do in order for life to arrive at its current level of complexity.
Dr. Fazale Rana pointed out in his book "Who Was Adam" that the problem with common genes being evidence for common ancestry is that even though humans are "98% ape" (we share 98% of our genes with the great apes), we are also 30% daffadil (we share 30% of our genes with the daffodil). Unless you are willing to admit that you are one-third flower, this means nothing. Dr. Rana goes into detail of some of the "Junk DNA" in his book "The Cell's Design"; in there he points out that scientists are actually finding uses for "junk DNA". Dr. Rana argues that these and common anatomical features can also be explained via "common design". He also explains that the fossil record actually shows that life was complex from the beginning; and shows "explosions" of speciation rather than a "gradual climb from relatively simple to complex". Dr. Rana argues that these "explosions" would be expected if a God was creating animals already in their complete form.
In his book "Creation as Science", Dr. Hugh Ross shows that the fossil record actually goes against any form of Evolution (naturalistic or theistic). So, Evolution loses that piece of evidence. Creation gains it. Now granted Common Descent has not lost all its evidence, but the evidence can be explained by Creation also. So, Creation is ahead of Evolution when it comes to the evidence.
Microevolution has been argued as part of God's great design to allow for variety and changing environments for His creatures. An animal's ability to adapt to a changing environment is perfectly compatible with God's nature. Much like engineers make certain designs optimal for multiple conditions, the Designer of the creation did the same.
What is not supported by the evidence is Macroevolution (Naturalistic or Theistic). We are left only with Creation.
Dr. Fazale Rana was recently interviewed on Stand to Reason with Greg Koukl. The name of the show is "What Darwin Didn't Know". Here is the complete recording (about 2 hours); Dr. Rana's interview starts about halfway through.
So to conclude this series: Based on the physical evidence and the Biblical evidence, it is safe to conclude that God created the universe about 14 billion years ago, and did not rely on mutations to "create" His creatures. Biblical inerrency is upheld and our observations of nature are verified to be accurate. We maintain consistency throughout the theory.
If you would like me to go into more detail about any specific topic discussed in this series, email me.
For more information, refer to the books, DVDs, and websites linked to throughout the series.
If you have not already, please read my post "Nature vs. Scripture" before continuing.
In Part 1, I talked a little bit about how the Big Bang theory is a theory that is compatible with the Bible. In Part 2, I will tackle one of the Christian objections to the Big Bang:
Does accepting the Big Bang as fact mean that you concede any ground to evolution or naturalism? The major concern among Christians about the Big Bang is that it states that the universe is billions of years old; and these Christians believe that this is enough time for evolution to explain life naturalistically- doing away with God.
Big Bang cosmology states that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. In order for naturalistic evolution to take place and end up with life as complex as it is now, it would take into the trillions of trillions of years (this calculation was performed by a naturalist, not a theist. I'll post the reference as soon as I can find it again). 13.7 billion years is way too short of time for naturalistic evolution to explain the complexity of life. This is why many naturalists do not accept the Big Bang. Many naturalists prefer the steady state or cyclic universe model (both are infinite in time). If they can have an infinite or near infinite universe, then evolution has enough time to explain the complexity of life. The Big Bang actually restricts the amount of time evolution has to produce the life forms we see today (and even the first life forms in the fossil record). Therefore, the Big Bang does not require or even imply a belief in evolution to explain life. But let me take this one step further:
The origin of life problem. Evolution does not even attempt to explain how life started; it only attempts to explain how the different types of life emerged. It assumes life already exists. There have been many naturalistic theories to explain how life began. Earth has been abandoned as a source for the origin of life (primordial soup theory). Naturalistic origin-of-life researchers have shifted their focus to extraterrestrial sources (that's why the media freaks out every time there is the slightest discovery on Mars or Titan). Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. Fazale Rana have both argued in their books (Darwin's Black Boxand The Cell's Design, respectively) for the extreme complexity of even the simplest life. Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana argue in their coauthored book (Origins of Life) for the impossibility for the origin of life on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) due to its irreduciblely complex requirements. Hugh Ross also argues against the current theory of aliens bringing life to earth in his book Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men. If you want one book that quickly gives an overview of all this material, check out Creation as Scienceby Hugh Ross.
Since the Big Bang has now been separated in our minds from Evolution, in Part 3 I will tackle the other Christian objection to the Big Bang's claim of billions of years. Does the Bible strictly teach a creation that took place in only 6 24hr days?
