Article 3 - The Grip of Evolution
Ever since Darwin put forward his theory of evolution, propelled by the brilliant mechanism of natural selection (see article 1), our society and culture has not been the same. Whether or not people are aware of it, the evolutionistic worldview has permeated many levels of thought and understanding, heavily colouring the way many of us view life. Today, the theory of evolution strongly under girds a multitude of academic disciplines (eg. biology, anthropology, psychology and sociology, to name a few). This has a significant bearing on education, which in turn affects the way many of us see and understand the world. Just how did this theory gain such a respected position of influence?
A natural explanation, please
When scientists attempt to explain a phenomenon, one criterion for the explanation is that it should be natural. That is, an explanation that is purely materialistic, with no references to the supernatural. Evolution is accordingly put forward as a natural theory. It proposes completely materialistic mechanisms, and evokes no allusions to the divine or paranormal. As such, it is seen as scientific, and thus trustworthy.
But is it fair to insist that only materialistic explanations are valid in explaining any occurrence or observation in life? What is the definition of "natural", anyway? Could it possibly change with time? In my opinion, as I watch a butterfly emerge from a cocoon, looking nothing like the caterpillar that it was just a little while before - I find it hard to describe it in words other than "incredible", "beyond belief", and maybe even "supernatural". Even if all the 'nuts and bolts' behind metamorphosis could be scientifically explained, it would still seem amazing to me, almost as if the whole process had been orchestrated.
To be sure, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is noble and right, and there is a robust and very appropriate set of criteria that a theory must fulfil before being seen as valid. The issue however is its rejection of any theory that is other than materialistic.
A perfect symphony
In describing the process of metamorphosis, I alluded to the analogy of an orchestra. Let's take that one step further. When we consider the world with its incredible biodiversity, from the intricate and specific mechanisms that occur within our human bodies, to the way in which ecological and geological systems work together, we are pressed for an explanation. Imagine 1,000,000 different people, each picking up a random instrument which they'd never learnt before, and playing them all at once. What would result? Do you think you'd enjoy the sound? Let's give them a year to practise. In fact, let's give them a million years to practise. What are the odds that they would come to a point of perfect harmony? Very slim. And the world as we know it today doesn't just play static chords of harmony - it works together in a way that's indescribable; like a brilliant continuous perfect symphony, of the highest calibre. If you attended such a concert, you wouldn't presume that the orchestra just happened to play every single note correctly by chance. It would be perfectly valid and expected to assume that it had been 'orchestrated' - that someone had written the piece, and that each player had the capacity and talent to play their part.
When we consider the world then, perhaps it is quite reasonable to presume that the symphony being played was written by someone, and this universal orchestra is still following the cues of its conductor, even at this very moment.
Let there be Life!
Yet the theory of evolution lives on, taught almost as fact in schools, universities, and influencing studies and research of all sorts. (NB. For the rest of this article, when I mention "evolution", I am referring to it as a theory on its own, without any place for God whatsoever.) Its proponents hail that evolution has been clearly proven by key experiments, even when they are often fraught with ambiguity.
One such example is the Miller Experiment. In 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment where he recreated what was believed to be the atmospheric conditions of the early earth, billions of years ago. Under laboratory conditions, he mixed together hydrogen, ammonia, methane and heated water vapour. He then simulated lighting (during a thunderstorm in early earth, perhaps) by shooting electricity through the mixture, and lo and behold, a very curious product resulted: amino acids. Now that may not sound like a whole big deal to you, but amino acids are the building blocks of all proteins, which are possibly one of the most important compounds necessary for life. What Miller managed to do was effectively convert inorganic gases into organic molecules - one big step towards the spontaneous appearance of life on earth. This 'proved' to the world that evolution wasn't such a big leap of faith after all - it was pretty easy for the early earth to create life.
With time, however, came new knowledge. By the mid 1970s, several leading researchers were already declaring that Miller's experiment was flawed, because the early earth atmosphere would have looked nothing like what was used in his experiment. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide would have been present, lowering the high methane-ammonia concentrations that Miller used, and this would drastically affect the products obtained. Furthermore, Miller had used what he called a 'cold trap' to isolate the amino acids, as soon as they were produced in his experiment. If he hadn't, the amino acids would have rapidly degraded or be destroyed by other compounds in the mixture, which is what would have likely happened in early earth conditions, without any intervention.
Today, the Miller Experiment is disregarded even by many evolutionary scientists, and yet is still taught in schools and universities as substantial proof for the theory of evolution. And there are many other such questionable pieces of 'evidence' being used, such as Haeckel's drawing of embryos, the Archaeopteryx fossil, or even Darwin's 'Tree of Life', to name a few (see the links below for further info). Why aren't students being taught the whole picture? It seems that evolutionary scientists are always so quick to claim any piece of evidence which shows that life could have occurred spontaneously, often in spite of conflicting facts. The theory of evolution is not necessarily untrue, but one feels compelled to question why their proponents appear so afraid for it to be disproved. Why the avoidance of any explanation that isn't 'natural'? Instead of mere blind chance, could the mechanisms that created the world be better explained by a guided form of evolution, perhaps?
Implications and applications
Once again, the question is begged: what does this have to do with us? I mean, even if evolution seems to have a bit of a grip on our society and education, it sure isn't controlling or influencing me individually. Or is it? Let's look what would happen if we took evolution seriously.
If evolution is true, it means that life is all about the survival of the fittest. Selfishness is not a bad trait - on the contrary, it's normal and expected. You should do all you can to rise to the top whatever that means for you, and if it means many other people losing out, then too bad, they were too 'weak' to deserve better anyway. The world is there for you to exploit - life is all about surviving successfully and subsequently providing a better life for your children. Who cares about people born with disabilities - we just hope they die before they can have babies. Our species could definitely do without people like them.
It's a very bleak view of society that I'm painting, but can you see how it's simply a natural outcome of taking evolution seriously? And what's worse is that we can actually see this happening - not just in other people's lives, but sometimes in our very own. We might claim not to implicitly believe in evolution, but we often live as if we do. It's easy to lapse into thinking that the world exists purely for us, to use and abuse - that a successful life should be pursued at all costs, at the expense of anything or anyone. Yet is this truly the way to live? Something deep inside everyone knows that this just seems wrong.
Another outcome of evolution's influence, although more subtle, is the fact that increasingly, people are attributing beauty and creativity in nature to mere chance, or even to nature itself. "Isn't Mother Nature clever?" you would often hear. Now this would all be fine, except that if there really was something more than Mother Nature, if perhaps a God existed that did indeed create the entire universe intricately and beautifully, then saying that nature (in itself) is brilliant isn't simply ignorance, but almost a direct insult to the very one who made us. I'm not claiming just yet that God definitely exists, but I want us to entertain all possibilities. After all, that's what true science is.
The grip that evolution has on our world today is real and near. This may not be a totally bad thing, but I hope I've helped you see that it may not be a good thing either. Many of us live by its cues, whether or not we realise it, for it lies deep and quiet within our thinking. Let's identify the hold that it has on us, and honestly question it. Do we believe it because it's actually been authentically and honestly proven, or because we just want to? In the following article, we will consider the mathematical problem that the theory of evolution faces, for if it is to stand as a scientific theory, it needs to withstand rigorous interrogation and investigation. If it survives, very well, it should be heartily believed. If it doesn't, an alternative explanation deserves to be sought.
References, and for more information:
Miller Experiment:
Darwnism Refuted
Definition from Wikipedia
Institute of Creation Research article
Evolution as a suitable scientific explanation:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9712/barr.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html
http://www.evoled.org/lessons/nature.htm
A natural explanation, please
When scientists attempt to explain a phenomenon, one criterion for the explanation is that it should be natural. That is, an explanation that is purely materialistic, with no references to the supernatural. Evolution is accordingly put forward as a natural theory. It proposes completely materialistic mechanisms, and evokes no allusions to the divine or paranormal. As such, it is seen as scientific, and thus trustworthy.
But is it fair to insist that only materialistic explanations are valid in explaining any occurrence or observation in life? What is the definition of "natural", anyway? Could it possibly change with time? In my opinion, as I watch a butterfly emerge from a cocoon, looking nothing like the caterpillar that it was just a little while before - I find it hard to describe it in words other than "incredible", "beyond belief", and maybe even "supernatural". Even if all the 'nuts and bolts' behind metamorphosis could be scientifically explained, it would still seem amazing to me, almost as if the whole process had been orchestrated.
To be sure, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is noble and right, and there is a robust and very appropriate set of criteria that a theory must fulfil before being seen as valid. The issue however is its rejection of any theory that is other than materialistic.
A perfect symphony
In describing the process of metamorphosis, I alluded to the analogy of an orchestra. Let's take that one step further. When we consider the world with its incredible biodiversity, from the intricate and specific mechanisms that occur within our human bodies, to the way in which ecological and geological systems work together, we are pressed for an explanation. Imagine 1,000,000 different people, each picking up a random instrument which they'd never learnt before, and playing them all at once. What would result? Do you think you'd enjoy the sound? Let's give them a year to practise. In fact, let's give them a million years to practise. What are the odds that they would come to a point of perfect harmony? Very slim. And the world as we know it today doesn't just play static chords of harmony - it works together in a way that's indescribable; like a brilliant continuous perfect symphony, of the highest calibre. If you attended such a concert, you wouldn't presume that the orchestra just happened to play every single note correctly by chance. It would be perfectly valid and expected to assume that it had been 'orchestrated' - that someone had written the piece, and that each player had the capacity and talent to play their part.
When we consider the world then, perhaps it is quite reasonable to presume that the symphony being played was written by someone, and this universal orchestra is still following the cues of its conductor, even at this very moment.
Let there be Life!
Yet the theory of evolution lives on, taught almost as fact in schools, universities, and influencing studies and research of all sorts. (NB. For the rest of this article, when I mention "evolution", I am referring to it as a theory on its own, without any place for God whatsoever.) Its proponents hail that evolution has been clearly proven by key experiments, even when they are often fraught with ambiguity.
One such example is the Miller Experiment. In 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment where he recreated what was believed to be the atmospheric conditions of the early earth, billions of years ago. Under laboratory conditions, he mixed together hydrogen, ammonia, methane and heated water vapour. He then simulated lighting (during a thunderstorm in early earth, perhaps) by shooting electricity through the mixture, and lo and behold, a very curious product resulted: amino acids. Now that may not sound like a whole big deal to you, but amino acids are the building blocks of all proteins, which are possibly one of the most important compounds necessary for life. What Miller managed to do was effectively convert inorganic gases into organic molecules - one big step towards the spontaneous appearance of life on earth. This 'proved' to the world that evolution wasn't such a big leap of faith after all - it was pretty easy for the early earth to create life.
With time, however, came new knowledge. By the mid 1970s, several leading researchers were already declaring that Miller's experiment was flawed, because the early earth atmosphere would have looked nothing like what was used in his experiment. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide would have been present, lowering the high methane-ammonia concentrations that Miller used, and this would drastically affect the products obtained. Furthermore, Miller had used what he called a 'cold trap' to isolate the amino acids, as soon as they were produced in his experiment. If he hadn't, the amino acids would have rapidly degraded or be destroyed by other compounds in the mixture, which is what would have likely happened in early earth conditions, without any intervention.
Today, the Miller Experiment is disregarded even by many evolutionary scientists, and yet is still taught in schools and universities as substantial proof for the theory of evolution. And there are many other such questionable pieces of 'evidence' being used, such as Haeckel's drawing of embryos, the Archaeopteryx fossil, or even Darwin's 'Tree of Life', to name a few (see the links below for further info). Why aren't students being taught the whole picture? It seems that evolutionary scientists are always so quick to claim any piece of evidence which shows that life could have occurred spontaneously, often in spite of conflicting facts. The theory of evolution is not necessarily untrue, but one feels compelled to question why their proponents appear so afraid for it to be disproved. Why the avoidance of any explanation that isn't 'natural'? Instead of mere blind chance, could the mechanisms that created the world be better explained by a guided form of evolution, perhaps?
Implications and applications
Once again, the question is begged: what does this have to do with us? I mean, even if evolution seems to have a bit of a grip on our society and education, it sure isn't controlling or influencing me individually. Or is it? Let's look what would happen if we took evolution seriously.
If evolution is true, it means that life is all about the survival of the fittest. Selfishness is not a bad trait - on the contrary, it's normal and expected. You should do all you can to rise to the top whatever that means for you, and if it means many other people losing out, then too bad, they were too 'weak' to deserve better anyway. The world is there for you to exploit - life is all about surviving successfully and subsequently providing a better life for your children. Who cares about people born with disabilities - we just hope they die before they can have babies. Our species could definitely do without people like them.
It's a very bleak view of society that I'm painting, but can you see how it's simply a natural outcome of taking evolution seriously? And what's worse is that we can actually see this happening - not just in other people's lives, but sometimes in our very own. We might claim not to implicitly believe in evolution, but we often live as if we do. It's easy to lapse into thinking that the world exists purely for us, to use and abuse - that a successful life should be pursued at all costs, at the expense of anything or anyone. Yet is this truly the way to live? Something deep inside everyone knows that this just seems wrong.
Another outcome of evolution's influence, although more subtle, is the fact that increasingly, people are attributing beauty and creativity in nature to mere chance, or even to nature itself. "Isn't Mother Nature clever?" you would often hear. Now this would all be fine, except that if there really was something more than Mother Nature, if perhaps a God existed that did indeed create the entire universe intricately and beautifully, then saying that nature (in itself) is brilliant isn't simply ignorance, but almost a direct insult to the very one who made us. I'm not claiming just yet that God definitely exists, but I want us to entertain all possibilities. After all, that's what true science is.
The grip that evolution has on our world today is real and near. This may not be a totally bad thing, but I hope I've helped you see that it may not be a good thing either. Many of us live by its cues, whether or not we realise it, for it lies deep and quiet within our thinking. Let's identify the hold that it has on us, and honestly question it. Do we believe it because it's actually been authentically and honestly proven, or because we just want to? In the following article, we will consider the mathematical problem that the theory of evolution faces, for if it is to stand as a scientific theory, it needs to withstand rigorous interrogation and investigation. If it survives, very well, it should be heartily believed. If it doesn't, an alternative explanation deserves to be sought.
References, and for more information:
Miller Experiment:
Darwnism Refuted
Definition from Wikipedia
Institute of Creation Research article
Evolution as a suitable scientific explanation:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9712/barr.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html
http://www.evoled.org/lessons/nature.htm
said
mingdao at
9:00 PM
4 Comments:
This was a comment made by SJ, probably directed at LEGO Article 2, but I'll address it here anyway.
SJ: Actually most christians do not believe that the world is a young earth. It remains just a 'young earth hypothesis'. Perhaps its cos u just got it off that site. And, personally, i dont believe that the 6 days = 6x24 hrs. I think there is sufficient evidence to show that the days could equal a certain time period in the earth's history :)
Hmm, that is a good point - I don't think many christians spend much time thinking through how old the earth is. Most, if I may generalise, probably regard the Genesis account as somewhat literal, and at the same time know of the fact that 'science' has proven the world to be really really old and stuff...so they merge both ideas in their head somewhat into an unspecific mesh.
It's interesting though, quite a few christians I know actually do believe in a young earth and a (literal) 6 literal day creation. I personally reckon that if you take the bible at face value, a literal 6 days seems to be what is clearly suggested! Answers in Genesis (like you mentioned) gives a very good case for a literal 6 days, and I find it quite hard to refute personally, even if I tried hard to. I'd be interested, though, to hear what your reasons are for interpreting the 6 days as 6 'periods of time' :) Do let me know!
By
mingdao, at 6:40 AM
Haha here I am writing a second comment to my own article. Very sad.
But, it's in response to SJ's 2nd comment (which he put on my tagboard again), which was:
Sure. Do read works by william lane craig, michael behe, stephen meyer and philip johnson.would help :)
My response - I've read quite a few articles and books by them, and while they give the old earth hypothesis a good case, they don't address the genesis 6-day notion very directly. I'm curious to know what you think, tho, sj ;)
By
mingdao, at 4:25 AM
haha sorry. i dind realise i could post here. im a blogger idiot remember? :P well, i want to be fair and objective, and so i'll say that there is compelling evidence for both the Young Earth Hypothesis (YEH) and the flip side. both schools of thought have very substantial points and justification for what they think. but this is why i think each day is a period of time
1) there are well known accounts of different Ages...the pleistocene etc etc. clearly, each different age takes many years to pass, certainly longer than a few hundred, maybe a few thousand years. There were many many ages and each have been clearly documented by science, and no one seems to refute that. so if there were many ages, each lasting
2) many creatures today have been through many stages of MICRO-evolution (adaptation). ME does not happen overnight. And science has historically documented many animals losing a part or growing an extra part. indeed it has been suggested that humans will lose our appendixes in time to come. ME takes ages to occur. 10,000 years is way to short to address the ME issue.
3) as flawed as dating technologies are, we cannot discount that they can be somewhat useful. science has used many forms of dating over the years, ice core dating, carbon dating, argon dating, uranium dating, radioactive matrix dating, and even dating through the cycles of the sun and moon. taken alone, one form of dating may be inaccurate. but if taken altogether, it may give largely varying results, but at least we get a clear picture that 10,000 years is actually quite short, too short in fact.
4) there has been documentary evidence of different ages/occurences. The Cambrian Explosion or Cambrian Big-Bang for example. Prior to the CBB, there was little documentation of the fossil record. but all of a suddent, the CBB occured and a whole universe of animals and creatures sprung up. this theory may seem a little weak, but based on what we know, the CBB may well be the 3rd day of creation as documneted in the Bible.
these are just some of the reasons why i don't support the YEH. but i know we agree on one thing - that darwinist evolution is flawed and falls flat on its face when compared to the theories of cause-effect and intelligent design. even more compelling is michael Behe's dissertation on irreducible complexity, something that i feel hammers the final nail into darwin's already nail-ridden coffin.
in case you haven't heard of the Wistar Institute, you should check it up.basically, darwinists and mathematicians gathered over four conventions to debate on the mathematical probability of darwinist evolution occuring. they argued and it degenerated into a name calling session and insult hurling affair. the mathematicians continually told the darwinists that evolution was mathematically impossible. it was like sitting on the moon and throwing darts down to earth hoping that a dart would hit a bullseye on a dart board in Ang Mo Kio. the darwinists got more and more desperate and they sought to come up with last gasp theses to defend darwinism. but they couldn't. in the end, it was decided that the proceeds of the Wistar Institute would not be recorded and would be eradicated so as to prevent the creationists (us) from getting our hands on ammo to hit evolution. it was a complete disgrace for darwinism. (:
let's continue studying the mysteries and wonders of creation, but at the same time, not relying on head knowledge of God alone, but also stand in awe of Him.
By
shangjun, at 5:45 AM
Good points you made there. I agree with them mostly - there is strong evidence to suggest that the world is much older than 10000 years. I guess my issue is that the Genesis account of creation really does seem to suggest it was 6 literal days. The hebrew word used was "yom", and every other time that word was used in the bible, apparently, it meant a literal 24-hour day. If it was meant to be just a "period of time", Genesis 1 shoudn't have used "yom".
Also, the 6 days work + 1 day rest idea is used as a model for the Israelites, when God spells out to them (through Moses) the 10 commandments. Exodus 20:8-11 says that just as God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, so we are to keep the sabbath day holy. Clearly God must have meant 24-hour days, in both cases.
Anyway, I'm not sure which one I believe personally, but just want to explore thoroughly both views. Thanks for your input mate ;)
By
mingdao, at 5:58 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home