An Open Dialogue with Rich

61 Responses to “An Open Dialogue with Rich”

1. Rich Blinne on May 21st, 2008 6:49 pm

   Hello, I’m Rich Blinne. First of all I would like to publicly thank Dr. Tackett for his gracious invitation. I believe this is an opportunity to show the World how Christians can differ, following the Biblical admonition to speak the truth in love. As Del noted, I am a board member of the Rocky Mountain Section of the American Scientific Affiliation. The ASA is a fellowship of men and women of science and disciplines that can relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. ASA was founded in 1941 and has grown significantly since that time. The stated purpose of the ASA is “to investigate any area relating Christian faith and science” and “to make known the results of such investigations for comment and criticism by the Christian community and by the scientific community.”

   As an organization, the ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue. This includes the issue of origins. Any opinion expressed by me concerning origins should be considered my opinion and should not be interpreted as the official position of the ASA. We are committed to providing an open forum where controversies can be discussed without fear of unjust condemnation. Legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed within the Affiliation in a context of Christian love and concern for truth.

   Our platform of faith has four important planks:

   • We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.
   • We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.
   • We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.
   • We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God’s creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

   While the ASA accepts Christians of all stripes that can confess the platform above, I am an evangelical. I confess the saving blood of Jesus Christ, the only means of salvation which is through faith alone. I confess the Five Solas of the Reformation. I am a member of Faith Evangelical Free Church of Fort Collins. I believe God is a God of truth and this means that which He reveals through Scripture and through Nature reconcile. Any apparent contradiction is the result of our misinterpretation of either or both “books”. With respect to origins and following the Ecumenical Creeds I believe in Creation. I believe in intelligent design because I believe in a Designer and not the other way around. I believe that Natural Theology has an appropriate place in confirming our faith and as an activity of pre-evangelism. As part of this activity, the so-called Teleological Proof for the existence of God is an important part of such a system. I believe that an important part of truth telling is also the relational part, though. Rhetorical games are what unbelievers do. I believe we should grant our opponent’s strongest argument and not his weakest. It is far better to lose an argument than to lose a brother.

   As I hope all can see we have much in common. I want to put any differences that we may be discussing in the future in the context of all we have in common. The Communion of Saints is something the World does not understand and if it is within my power I will preserve and defend it as God gives me strength. . Many times people (and especially scientists and engineers) use language in ways that can produce what I call “violent agreement”. If I detect that Del and I are saying the same thing in different ways I will endeavor to make that clear. Like Del, I believe the truth will set us free and I pray that the Holy Spirit will grant us both the wisdom to find the truth and the grace to admit when we have erred.

2. Rich Blinne on May 21st, 2008 9:41 pm

   “The movie raised the issue that there appears to be a line within academia and science that people are not allowed to cross. That line, although somewhat fuzzy, is one that doesn’t allow evidence to be raised against evolutionary theory. In some cases, it seems that the consequences to do so are fairly severe. In your initial response to me, it appeared you were saying that you thought this premise was false and that the hostility toward dissent doesn’t exist. Is that a correct understanding of your position, or have I woefully misunderstood your whole point? If so, please forgive me.”

   Where we agree is there is hostility in Academia. This hostility is not merely to those who oppose evolutionary theory but also to Christians in general regardless of our opinion on origins. For example, Dr. Gonzalez’ area has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with whether there is a God at all. It didn’t matter that he didn’t teach ID, only that ID proponents support his work. (Those of us who don’t agree with ID, close ranks here, too.) The fact that he is only tangentially aligned with the Intelligent Design Movement was used as an easy argument by militant atheism. If you didn’t know, Hector Alvarez is the head of the Atheist Student’s group at ISU. He’s also not a scientist but a walking oxymoron, the atheist religion professor. My point of distinction is that scientists are not the enemy, but atheists are and their agenda is not merely limited to ID. ID is just the low hanging fruit. Expelled in my opinion focuses on the wrong thing, that is science instead of atheism. My agreeing with them on some aspects of evolutionary biology is no protection. It’s not our opinion concerning evolution that they hate. They hate us because they hate our Lord.

   My concern is ID, the movement, is giving those atheists an easy club against not only those who believe ID is valid but also all Christians. You say no evidence is allowed. My view as a sympathetic outsider is no scientific evidence is being produced and it is the lack of evidence which is producing the opposition and not the questioning of evolution. (This limitation for “scientific” evidence is self-imposed and in my opinion they should remove their own restriction.) The complaint “where is the testable hypothesis?” is a valid one. The fact that atheists jump on this because the rest of their argument is lame does not take away from this. Abusus non tollit usum. You may not take my word for it but how about Philip Johnson?

   “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.”

   For the sake of brevity and to have a colloquy I have just made assertions so far. I can flesh out any of the following concepts if you desire:

   1. What’s the Christian objection to ID?
   2. Why is methodological naturalism a Christian rather than an atheistic concept?
   3. What positive alternatives are there to ID in the realm of Natural Theology?
   4. Why do I consider ID to be a form of evolutionary creationism (my position)?
   5. How can evolutionary creationists and ID proponents and classical creationists work together?
   6. Where are the bodies buried in evolutionary thought?
   7. What is the “faith” of scientists? (It’s not what you think but it is helpful in reaching secular scientists for Christ.)
   8. What are the points of agreement between ID and EC?
   9. What are some examples of evolutionary biology accepting critiques and what are the characteristics of such successful criticism?
   10. How can I reach my secular scientist friend for Christ?
   11. What is scientism and why do I believe that ID is a form of it?
   12. How did a 1987 Supreme Court decision warp ID and cause outsiders to wrongly conflate ID and creationism?

   Rich

3. Rich Blinne on May 22nd, 2008 7:17 am

   The executive director of the ASA saw my intro and concluded that I could be writing from a monastery from Tibet! So, please permit me to include my more scientific background. My alma mater is Iowa State University, the same school as Dr. Gonzalez. I have been working in the semiconductor manufacturing industry for 25 years. This engineering background gives me a fairly unique perspective to see that the arguments from information theory or molecular machines really, really break down.

   God’s ability to create is not constrained by our lack of imagination. In order for you to see the molecular machines, highly idealized drawings need to be done, much like the drawings of Haekel’s embryos. This is the reason XVIVO and Harvard are suing the production company of Expelled for copyright infringement. They are using the same “simplifications” as the Harvard video. For examples, the kenesins in the video are not accurately portrayed. Here’s what the Harvard animator had to say:

   “Coincidence? Given their “access to the same literature” we had, where Graham Johnson at Scripps so brilliantly worked out the real motion of kinesins, I am simply blown away that the “Intelligent Design” animators slavishly made the hands of their kenesins move exactly as we did, even though we intentionally left out the stochastic Brownian motion which actually characterizes the tractive force and periodic pedicle placement of these tiny motivators. We simply did not have the time or budget to render these, and a dozen other details, to the level of insanity we would like to have done! This was, after all, an underfunded proof-of-concept piece. The cellular biology that serves as “filler” material, between scenes copied from Inner Life, is riddled with biological errors. Imagine “Intelligent Design’s” depiction of protein synthesis without ribosomes!”

   Information theory comes from the arena of computer design and I use it in my work. In my opinion Dembski’s use of information theory is similarly flawed. If complexity was the mark of the highest form of life then the pinnacle of God’s creation would be the onion! What ID is not telling you is there is absolutely no relationship between so-called “information” and organismal complexity. On the other hand, our genome is 96% in common with the chimpanzee one, with the exception that our chromosome number two splices two chimpanzee chromosomes together. Neanderthal DNA extracted from fossils is even closer to us, but is far enough away to be not human. Science operates on the concept that the simplest explanation is often the correct one. This principle shows that our genomes are the result of common descent and not specified complexity. If you want to move away from the simplest explanation you need to actually provide evidence and as Philip Johnson said ID hasn’t provided it yet.

   Rich

4. Del on May 22nd, 2008 3:32 pm

   Thank you for giving us some of your personal background. I agree with you that God has revealed Himself and truth through both His written word and His creation. That is why I am so fascinated by both. Neither are the products of random processes.

   You have raised a whole lot of questions and issues in my mind, but in order to stay within our rules of keeping things short (~250 words), let me first address one of your points:

   “I have been working in the semiconductor manufacturing industry for 25 years. This engineering background gives me a fairly unique perspective to see that the arguments from information theory or molecular machines really, really break down…What ID is not telling you is there is absolutely no relationship between so-called “information” and organismal complexity.”

   I find these very interesting. Could you please help me understand why you think there is absolutely no relationship between “information” and DNA, and then relate how your engineering and semiconductor manufacturing background lead you to the conclusion that trying to make this connection “really, really breaks down”?

   P.S. Rich, I pray you are all right. I know the tornadoes came through your area today. May the Lord provide you and your family His protection.

5. Rich Blinne on May 22nd, 2008 10:16 pm

   Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics and engineering involving the quantification of information. Historically, information theory was developed to find fundamental limits on compressing and reliably communicating data. This theory is key to designing computer and communication systems to be efficient and reliable. A key metric of information theory is complexity. The complexity of a string is the length of the string’s shortest description in some fixed description language.

   The complexity of DNA can roughly be estimated by the number of nucleotides. One way for this to be increased is by a process known as polyploidy. William Dembski claims that DNA has “specified complexity“ which he also claims is equated with highly compressed strings. Despite the best efforts of researchers, only minimal compression has been achieved. [c.v.. A. O. Schmitt and H. Herzel. Estimating the entropy of DNA sequences. J. Theoretical Biology 188 (1997), 369–377 and J. K. Lanctot, M. Li, and E. h. Yang. Estimating DNA sequence entropy. In Proc. 11th ACM-SIAM Symp. Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 409–418, 2000.] Thus, it contradicts Dembski’s assertion.

   It is also presumed that DNA is a design specification. A more complex design requires a more complex specification. But, there are two paradoxes in biology known as the c-value and g-value paradoxes. More complex life does not necessarily have a higher DNA weight nor higher numbers of gene. The Human Genome Project overestimated the number of genes going in with estimates of 80-140,000 genes when the real number is around 30,000. What’s going on is there is a lot of “random” alternative splicing producing multiple proteins from the same gene. Before you say a ha, note that humans do not have the record for alternative splicing. The fruit fly does with 38,000 splice variants. Thus, evolution does not need to generate new “information” because ID’s concept of information is simply flawed.

   Rich

6. Rich Blinne on May 22nd, 2008 10:27 pm

   Thanks for your prayers and concerns. My manager lives in Windsor and his house was less than a 1/4 mile from the tornado. Other than frazzled nerves and a broken window all was well. The Lord be with you and yours, also.

   Today is a reminder that we should number our days that we may gain a heart of wisdom. My daughter noted how the other students panicked when the alarm went off but she was calm. We may not know what the Lord has in store for us, but we do know our Lord and His character.

   Rich

7. Rich Blinne on May 23rd, 2008 7:24 am

   Please note I made an error with the names above. The atheist at ISU is named Hector Avalos.

8. Del on May 23rd, 2008 9:42 am

   So, if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that DNA cannot be classified as “information” or as a “design specification”, but it is essentially part of a fairly “random” process.

   Is that correct?

   [P.S. I'm thankful you and your family are safe.]

9. Rich Blinne on May 23rd, 2008 2:21 pm

   I put in the word random as bait because much of the misunderstanding between scientists and lay people is that we use the word differently. To most people random connotes purposeless and no direction. Within science random means in part not predictable by humans. Even with this more restricted definition, evolution is considered a non-random process even by Richard Dawkins. Now parts of it are random in the restricted sense but the environment puts non-random restrictions on the evolutionary process.

   The question arises is evolution as Richard Dawkins claims, directionless and purposeless. A Biblical example is in order here. God’s prophet predicted that King Ahab would die. Ahab did everything in his power to live. Yet, an arrow shot “at random” killed him just as God predicted. If Richard Dawkins was on the battlefield he would have concluded that arrow had no purpose. We, however, know better. Yet, without Biblical revelation, even believing science cannot *detect* that purpose.

   And that’s the rub. ID claims it can detect God’s design and purpose scientifically. This assigns too much power to science in my opinion. God’s design of life is at a much higher level than merely a “DNA computer”. As Dr. Gonzalez has eloquently noted in Privileged Planet, the Universe is fine tuned for life. Evolutionary Creationism extends that concept with the diversity of life that can adapt to its environment through self-assembling biochemistry as being part of that fine tuning. Note the adaptive systems I use in my work have randomness as part of their design. Just because I systematically chose a randomly generated possibility does not make what I did purposeless or directionless. So, the ability to adapt and to heal and to ward off infection *is* the design and not any particular step along the way. Let me state I agree with Michael Behe that evolution is directed by God. Where we disagree is whether science can detect that direction.

   Paley’s worldview viewed design as manufacturing. ID’s worldview views design as information processing. God’s design is bigger than either of these concepts (or mine for that matter). Alister McGrath will be having a natural theology conference this Summer with the title Beyond Paley. They will be looking at a synthesis of evolutionary biology and intelligent design much like what I am talking about here. You can look it up at http://www.naturaltheology.org.

   Rich

10. Del on May 24th, 2008 11:10 pm

    Rich, let’s agree not to “bait” one another. “Baiting” another person is a verbal trap used to manipulate the conversation, usually in a way that will show yourself superior and the other either inferior or ignorant or foolish. That kind of dialogue isn’t really helpful and ends up with each of us distrusting the other and looking out more for the “bait” than dealing with the real issues and content. I don’t want to do that. I really am interested in understanding what your position is and why.

    Let me summarize what I understand your positions to be so far:

    1. You stated that Intelligent Design was wrong because there was absolutely no relationship between “information” and organismic complexity, so your position is that DNA cannot be classified as “information” nor does it contain or convey “information”;

    2. You do not believe that DNA can be classified as a “design specification” and that the DNA process actually involves a lot of “random” actions;

    3. You believe that evolution theory is true, though God directs the process;

    4. You believe that science cannot detect God’s design nor can it detect that God has been involved in the process.

    Now, I am going to proceed as if the above statements correctly reflect your beliefs and positions.

    1. Your position that DNA cannot be classified as “information” nor contain or convey “information” is very difficult for me to understand. Regardless of our inability to understand why human DNA is smaller than a salamander’s, DNA still contains a specific code that directs the development of a specific organism. Unless you were just “baiting” me with the word “information”, I have to be honest with you and say that this makes no sense at all.

    2. Your position that DNA cannot be classified as a “design specification” also doesn’t seem to make sense. As stated above, it is the DNA coding that “specifies” the “design” for the resulting development of a specific species. More than that, we can identify a specific human being within the species based upon their DNA. If DNA is not a design specification for a particular individual creature, then we are criminally convicting people based upon a faulty premise.

    3. If you believe that evolutionary theory is true, then what do you find lacking in the theory that requires God to be involved in the process? If all of the mechanisms are in place for the single-cell to “self-assemble”, as you stated it, into successively more and more complex organisms and species, then where does God fit into the picture and why?

    4. If science can’t detect God’s design, then what about the “lay person”? Can he detect it? Romans 1 says that “what may be known about God is plain to men because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood by what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” If it is “plain” to men, then why can’t it be plain to a “scientist”? If it is clearly seen, then why can’t it be described? And if it can be described, why can’t it be quantified? That is exactly the basis for Paley’s argument and what Intelligent Design is attempting to do today.

    Forgive the length of this, but I felt we needed some order to our dialogue. Please feel free to address these one at a time if time and space do not allow you to address them all together.

11. Rich Blinne on May 25th, 2008 8:51 pm

    First let me apologize for the word bait. I wanted to address the word random because it was often misunderstood. I used the word, knowing that it was likely to be misunderstood, so that I could have an opportunity to clarify.

    “Your position that DNA cannot be classified as “information” nor contain or convey “information” is very difficult for me to understand. Regardless of our inability to understand why human DNA is smaller than a salamander’s, DNA still contains a specific code that directs the development of a specific organism. Unless you were just “baiting” me with the word “information”, I have to be honest with you and say that this makes no sense at all.”

    This is not always true. What you are referring to is Crick’s so-called central dogma. DNA –> RNA –> protein There are microbes known as retroviruses, e.g. HIV. These viruses as the name implies goes backwards and literally infect the DNA. That is, the “information” flows backwards. If these viruses attack the germ line they become endogenous and then can be passed from one generation to another. This assumes that the victim of the infection is survived. In which case, the genes are silenced and the virus is in effect dead. This leaves a kind of scar in the DNA that is inherited.

    For the most part these end up being “junk” but again not always. One of the genes of an ERV is called env and is what allows the virus to merge with the victim’s cells. The development of the human placenta took advantage of human endogenous retro-virus W (HERV-W). It produced a protein knows as syncytin. Expression of this HERV-W Env (envelope) protein mediates trophoblast cell fusion, by a mechanism identical to that by which the virus enters the host cell. Now some English. The purpose of this is to allow the baby to implant in the human womb. The baby is allowed to stay in the placenta by the same chemistry a virus infects a cell. The problem being solved by the evolutionary process is that our bodies usually reject foreign DNA. Retro-viruses like HIV evades this. Thus, it has evolutionary advantage to unsilence the inactivated gene. What’s interesting here is that this only happens in placenta. By the way, we can look at the number of long terminal repeats (LTR) in the ERV and determine how long ago the infection occurred. In this case, 20-40 million years ago. Note: I am not saying that this is not designed but I am saying the design is not in the genome itself.

    From a computer perspective, I the programmer did not program this in. It’s also why computer viruses are called viruses because they inject code that is not part of the original design intent. Endogenous retroviruses basically disprove design intent of the genome. That’s why I don’t call it information because in this case the “code” necessary for implanting an embryo is literally missing from the original “design specification”.

    Rich

    The study I referenced above can be found here:

    Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis Nature 403, 785-789 (17 February 2000)

12. Rich Blinne on May 25th, 2008 10:30 pm

    “If you believe that evolutionary theory is true, then what do you find lacking in the theory that requires God to be involved in the process? If all of the mechanisms are in place for the single-cell to “self-assemble”, as you stated it, into successively more and more complex organisms and species, then where does God fit into the picture and why?”

    Why does it have to be that evolutionary theory need to be lacking for God to be in the picture? I believe in the doctrine called concursus divinitatis (Divine Concurrence). Everything is under the control of God. Jesus said in Matthew 10 that nothing happens apart from the will of God? Do you believe Him?

    Francis Collins calls what you are espousing the “God of the gaps”. 1 Cor. 14 tells us God is a God of order. If we see an ordered process it is proof of God and not the other way around. Thus, it is a reasonable expectation to see order. So, if life originated in an ordered fashion why should I have problems? Where does God fit into the picture? EVERYWHERE!!!

    “4. If science can’t detect God’s design, then what about the “lay person”? Can he detect it?”
    YES!!!!!!

    Science is necessarily limited to examining natural causes for natural effects. As I said above, the order of Creation is immediately accessible to the layman. But, science won’t get you where you need to go when you need theology instead. You then ask the most important question so far.

    If it is “plain” to men, then why can’t it be plain to a “scientist”?

    It is plain to *scientists* just not *science*. Again, the technique has limited application. One of the reasons why I believe Scripture is not a science textbook is precisely because of this deficiency. Science does not get you to God, trusting in Christ does. The atheists practice the religion of scientism, that the natural world is all there is and science is the only legitimate way of finding truth. Christians do not. What we should realize is that the Intelligent Design Movement by seeking to prove God “scientifically” is to buy into the atheist worldview. This is different from Natural Theology, by the way. You can find God by observing Nature, theologically and philosophically. Atheist and believing scientists see the same facts. The believing scientist sees an Universe ordered by God and the atheist sees self-existent laws. In neither case, however, are they practicing science here.

    In his Systematic Theology Charles Hodge was discussing some heavy duty philosophy. He then went on to note that this couldn’t possibly be salvific. Why? Because then how could “normal folk” get in? The same thing can be argued more strongly for science. If the Kingdom of God is entered by a little child then what place does the bacterial flagella have? Salvation is for Christ’s “little ones” and not the mighty with multiple PhDs.

    I’ll conclude echoing Mary’s words:

    He has shown strength with his arm
    and has scattered the proud in their conceit,
    Casting down the mighty from their thrones
    and lifting up the lowly.
    He has filled the hungry with good thing
    and sent the rich away empty.
    He has come to the aid of his servant Israel,
    to remember his promise of mercy,
    The promise made to our ancestors,
    to Abraham and his children for ever.

    Rich

13. Del on May 27th, 2008 9:40 am

    Okay…Rich has made his concluding remarks and so we are going to open the line up to anyone who wants to comment.
    Before we do, however, I would like to give my concluding remarks as well.

    First, I want to thank Rich for the time he has taken to enter into this dialogue. I have profited from it. I didn’t enter into this to “win” a debate, but to learn more about what a theistic evolutionist or evolutionary creationist believes and why.

    I think Rich’s final comments have truly gotten us to the heart of the issue. This is not really about “evidence” per se. It is about a theological position that drives how we see the evidence. I have used the illustration before, but I think it is appropriate here. I recall a championship football game between Tennessee and Auburn (my alma mater for my master’s work). Near the end of the game, the Tennessee quarterback threw a pass into the end zone. The wide receiver stretched out parallel to the ground to catch the ball. At the instant he did, the Tennessee players and half of the thousands of fans in the stands immediately saw it as a touchdown. But the interesting thing was that the Auburn players and half of the thousands of fans in the stands and yours truly, at home watching on my television, immediately saw it as incomplete, that the ball had touched the ground before he caught it.

    The point is that we have a tendency to see what we want to see. This is true for believers as well as unbelievers and we need to be aware of it.

    I believe that Rich has stated his underlying belief that science cannot detect the work of God because science must confine itself to the natural realm. “Scientists” can detect it, but not “science”. I believe this implies that the detection can only come through blind faith alone and not through empirical evidence. This presumes several things that I believe are false.

    First of all, it presumes that the natural realm does not give observable evidence of God’s creative work. I do not believe this. That is why the Romans 1 passage is so critical. It says that the evidence about God is “clearly seen” and it is clearly seen and understood from that which has been made. This “seeing” is not through the eyes of blind faith. It is real observation…clear observation…it is “plain” to them, as the passage declares. It is so plain and so clear, that the passage says that men are without excuse. This is talking about all men, not just believers. They would not be without excuse if the evidence had to be discerned through blind faith. That does violence to the passage. When John ran to the tomb, the Scripture says that he “saw” and he believed. No doubt he saw the physical evidence of the cloth “cocoon” that had collapsed into the vacuum left by Jesus’ resurrected body. The Scripture takes great pains to show the physical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Christianity is not a blind faith worldview. It is based upon evidence that comes from the warp and woof of life. When Jesus calmed the storm, the disciples were in awe because they “saw” him show evidence that even the winds and the rains obey him. Evolution declares that there is nothing “plain” or “clearly seen” here at all….that everything is understandable through natural processes…there is no reason to think that God is a part of this because nothing points to Him. It seems that the theistic evolutionist is agreeing but states that God is there…you just can’t see Him or discern His hand. I think that flies directly in the face of what the Romans passage is telling us. It further tells us that men “suppress the truth”…they suppress what is “plain” and “clearly seen”. But, Rich, if it is not observable, then what is the “plain” evidence that they are suppressing? That evidence can’t simply be relegated to blind faith. I think the thing they are suppressing is “plain” and “clear” observable evidence because I don’t think the hard evidence for evolution really exists…I believe it is severely lacking. Evidence for adaptation is used to imply speciation and once that bridge has been crossed, we have suppressed the “plain” and “clear” evidence that God created man and the beasts and the fish of the sea, each after their own kind. Denying that truth is part of the suppression.

    I think this explains why you have such a passion, it seems, to discredit Intelligent Design. I don’t think it comes from evidence, I think it comes from your theological presupposition. You stated that ID is working from the same worldview as atheism. How can that be? ID is attempting to show that there is “plain” observable evidence that exists within the natural realm that points to an intelligent designer. Atheism states that there is no evidence of that at all, nor will any evidence to the contrary be allowed to be discussed.

    The Scripture calls us to “persuade” men, to “demolish every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God”. You seem to be saying that we can do that as long as we don’t us the evidence from the natural realm. That is why I believe you were trying to disconnect “information” or “design” from DNA and why you were trying to redefine “random” and why you discount Paley’s argument and Intelligent Design’s argument. You are standing upon a presupposition that it is either wrong to argue from the natural realm or it is impossible to do so.

    On this we will have to simply agree to disagree.

    The world has given us the definition of science that you are using. It is a definition that says evidence for God will not be allowed in the “science” realm. It is interesting that Crick and even Dawkins would allow an alien force to be considered in the advent of life. They may even consider an alien force of tremendous power and wisdom. But if that force ever steps over the line into “God” then it becomes stupid and ignorant and “out of limits” for science. I don’t accept this definition. I don’t believe there is any area of life in which we should accept the notion that we cannot presume the existence of God. We search the ashes of a fire to determine if it was caused by natural forces or “intelligent” forces. Why can’t we sit in the lab and be free to do the same for God?

    Well, I want to thank Rich again and to confirm that brothers in the Lord can and should discuss or dialogue, in love, about areas of disagreement.

    Soli Deo Gloria!

14. Martha Troxel on May 27th, 2008 11:37 am

    This exchange has been very interesting to read.
    Thanks to both of you for your writings.I think that you both did a good job of being respectful of each others’ views and that was refreshing!
    In case you are wondering,I don’t believe in evolution- with or without God.

15. Dan Hagan on May 27th, 2008 11:58 am

    Del,

    Near the end of your response you stated:

    “It is interesting that Crick and even Dawkins would allow an alien force to be considered in the advent of life. They may even consider an alien force of tremendous power and wisdom. But if that force ever steps over the line into “God” then it becomes stupid and ignorant and “out of limits” for science.”

    For un-believers such as Crick and Dawkins, whether our existence is of alien or divine origin, it is the consequence that drives the desire that it be the former rather than the latter! To somehow find comfort in the completely foreign and unknown while discarding a well known (revealed) and loving God is truly unfathomable. Our depravity is such that we would surrender all to an unknown force rather than to a loving and caring Creator.

    Amazing….!

    Thanks Del and Rich! I learned quite a bit during this exchange….

16. Rich Blinne on May 27th, 2008 1:19 pm

    I would like to thank Del for the opportunity and leave a final clarification. I do think it is proper to argue from the natural realm. I just think the argument from order and beauty is superior than from complexity, however. Like Del, I entered this not to “win” but in a certain sense just to let people know people such as myself exist.

    I have seen far too many times when a student sees the very potent evidence in science believing that it must conflict with faith and then abandons his faith. What Del and Expelled got exactly right is there are atheistic professors that are out to get your children and grandchildren and it’s the state of their souls that drive me more than being “right” in a debate. Tim Keller in The Reason for Faith put it this way:

    “What can we conclude? Since Christian believers occupy different positions on both the meaning of Genesis 1 and on the nature of evolution, those who are considering Christianity as a whole should not allow themselves to be distracted by this intramural debate. The skeptical inquirer does not need to accept any one these positions in order to embrace the Christian faith. Rather, he or she should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of Christianity. Only after drawing conclusions about the person of Christ, the resurrection, and the central tenets of the Christian message should one think through the various options with regard to creation and evolution.”

    I live as an ambassador between the worlds of science and faith. What I have done here I also do with my secular colleagues. There are often much misunderstandings in both. I would like to let you know there is a great battle going on in the secular community. On one side is the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academies of Science, and the National Center for Science Education. All of these organizations while opposing the Intelligent Design Movement also state that religious faith and a belief in a Creator is valid for a scientist and that science is incapable of judging that faith. The other side you saw in full display in Expelled, the Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers of the World. They want nothing less than the destruction of our faith.

    We live in perilous spiritual times and it’s important that we keep our minds sharp and spiritually discerning. May the Lord bless you and keep you and may the Lord make His face shine upon you and give you peace. Amen.

17. Anonymous on May 27th, 2008 3:57 pm

    Thank you Del and thank you Rich!

    I think I made a comment earlier that I want nothing to do with a blind faith. Thanks, Del, for the biblical examples that point to evidence for belief in Christ.

    I wonder if calvinism has done damage to the body of Christ in this area by distorting how God uses the work of truth to bring sight to the blind. ???

    Sorry for jumping the gun and asking some questions relating to this discussion on the next post. I’ll repeat them here.
    a) What would it say about the character and nature of God if He used “survival of the fittest” to create all things?
    b) What doctrinal contradictions arise trying to fit evolution’s timeline of history with history according to scripture?
    c) Do some Christians just “happen” to believe in God?

    My own thoughts on the latter question are that if our faith is blind then it has no more credibility than Islam or many other “faiths”. Enter the quagmire “all religions are valid”. Blind faith in pratice simply becomes a crutch.

    Christian faith has lots of evidence for things not seen!!

    Mike W.

18. Andy on May 27th, 2008 6:33 pm

    Rich said: “And that’s the rub. ID claims it can detect God’s design and purpose scientifically. This assigns too much power to science in my opinion. ”

    This is misleading and incorrect. ID claims it can detect design in nature. It does not claim to be able to detect God’s purpose.

    Detecting design is not beyond science, so Rich needs to provide some reason that design detection techniques that are perfectly acceptable for applications such as fraud detection or archeology can’t be applied to structures or systems in nature.

    If there is design in nature, what would count as evidence? Following Rich’s lead, we’re assured to never find that evidence. He’s decided a priori that such evidence is undetectable. This is anti-science.

    ID proponents include agnostics, buddhists, etc. ID is not about proving or revealing God, but it certainly has implications in that discussion. Rich is failing to distinguish between the theory and the implications of the theory.

    Rich’s objections to ID have been answered effectively time and time again by the leading proponents of ID.

19. Doug M. on May 27th, 2008 6:34 pm

    Mike W.,
    What did you mean by, “I wonder if calvinism has done damage to the body of Christ in this area by distorting how God uses the work of truth to bring sight to the blind. ???”

    I don’t believe either calvinism nor arminianism in their true sense damges the Body of Christ. I believe to understand the theology of Christianity, both “sides” must be understood and accounted for.

    In their ariginal form, they were not as far apart as their proponents since then have taken them. Do not confuse today’s hyper-calvinists with John Calvin himself. In many ways they are futher from him than Calvin was from Wesley or Arminius.

    Doug M.

20. Dale Wickizer on May 27th, 2008 9:11 pm

    Wow! What a dialog. Thank you both.

    Rich, thank you for the clarification of the word “random”. I come from an engineering background as well and agree: it does not mean “purposeless”, just “unpredictable”.

    I also found your discussion of retroviruses, the synctyin protein and the development of the human embryo quite fascinating. Your statement “The baby is allowed to stay in the placenta by the same chemistry a virus infects a cell” got me thinking: Could “ID” stand for “Intelligent Destruction” as well as “Intelligent Design”? Satan, the destroyer, the great counterfeiter…how does he enter into this discussion? Could the serpent who twisted God’s words around, (“Did God really say…”), and who is able take something that is good (e.g., God’s law) and figure out a way to have people curse themselves by it (e.g., Balaam and the king of Moab)…could he have exploited the syncytin process to produce viruses that would attack and harm humans? Could he have somehow leveraged the very process God designed to produce life, in such a way as to produce disease and death? If not, were these created by God as well, or are they merely restrained by God? I wonder…

    Getting back to theistic evolution, isn’t this a relatively recent phenomenon? Wasn’t the original intent of Darwin’s theory to show how life came about through natural processes apart from God? Given his disillusionment with God over the death of his daughter, didn’t he turn his back on God and become agnostic? Because he couldn’t reconcile how a loving God would allow his daughter to suffer and die, wouldn’t the theory of evolution (to explain God away) be a somewhat “natural” (pardon the pun) outcome of his dilemma?

    The earliest proponents of Darwin having any association to God (like Alfred Russell Wallace) appear to be deists.

    In fact, theistic evolution seems more akin to the doctrine of Deism (that God basically set things in motion, but is non-personal and doesn’t interact with his creation) not that of Christianity.

    Also, if general evolution (theistic or not) was the process, how come we still don’t see evidence of the intermediate states, as organisms transmutated from species to species?

    At any rate, good discussion by both of you and thank you!

21. Steve Laufmann on May 27th, 2008 9:12 pm

    What is it about “scientific undetectability” that many theists find so compelling? I can understand why this is important for materialists, but why would a theist insist that God remain hidden behind “random” events? Certainly, he CAN work through events that seem random to us, but he is just as certainly not bound by such limited means.

    If God acts in time and space in ways that leave artifacts in the natural world, science should be able to detect and assess those just as well as any other artifacts of history.

    This should be just as true in the design and creation of life as it was in the resurrection.

    The God of the Bible is quite concerned with being known. God’s intent “that they may know” permeates scripture. That such a God would limit himself to acting only through apparently random events seems radically out of character.

22. Rusty Crozier on May 28th, 2008 7:06 am

    I find it interesting that creation and the Sabbath are so directly linked. The Sabbath being created by God for man; man being created by God for God.

    I am wondering how evolution could be part of God’s plan, if the evolution theory has done so much to undermine the concept of the Sabbath. Would God’s method undermine his purpose?

    In abandoning the creation truth, we abandon the reason for the Sabbath, and in abandoning the Sabbath principles, we abandon much of the time when we would rest and gaze upon the face of God. Would God have developed a system of life that would lead to the avoidance of gazing on His face?

    If what the bible says about God’s character and the Sabbath is true, then there must be some consideration given to the fact that only an idea or systematic way of thinking that is opposed to God would tear down His truth.

    I believe the truth about creation, but I do not understand it. Is Rich simply saying that he believes the truth about evolution but he does not understand it? Would it boil down then, to examining the “fruit” of the two truths and see which bears the character of God?

    Asked from a sincere heart, that is called to pastor people in a broken world… both in and because of Jesus,

    Rusty

23. Rick Baugh on May 28th, 2008 7:20 am

    Thanks for the interesting discussion!

    My take of Rich’s refutation of ID’s claims of irreducible complexity of life’s design seems to be that the “information” is even more complex than currently being claimed. This seems to me to only strengthen the ID argument, not dispute it.

    I do agree with Rich that there is a danger in trying to “prove God” with any gnostic outside of scripture, in that it does distract from the core Gospel message.

    However claiming even evidence (as opposed to proof) can not be found via science is going too far. Archeology consistently finds evidence supporting the veracity of God’s Word, such as ending the dispute whether Pilate ever lived. Personally, I find the ID argument to be compelling evidence of God. That geologists are starting to abandon Lyle’s “uniformitarianism” and consider catastrophic flooding to be the best explanation of formations is also confirming evidence. Many examples could be given.

24. Tom Remein on May 28th, 2008 8:28 am

    What a great discussion – thanks to both of you for a sensible approach to this often inflammatory subject.

    I would be interested to have Rich comment on the concept that evolution can explain the phenomenon of change over time (which assumes that species are mutable), but does nothing to explain the origin of life itself. Gonzalez and Richards point out the numerous “coincidences” and values which must lie between narrow ranges in order for the universe to have existed at all and for life to survive on a planet which is advantageously placed for discovery. In my simplistic way, I imagine God in the “Kitchen of the Mind”,(LOGOS),putting all the ingredients together in such a way as to create a universe capable of producing life that ultimately seeks fellowship with its creator (with “help” along the way). Whether God created life in an instant or over eons of time does not bother me in the least. What seems clear is that Paul in Romans Ch. 1 is correct in proclaiming that the creator is evident through his handiwork.

    Science is a tool, albeit a very powerful one, but like a computer, it has no power to “connect the dots” in the way a reasoning person can. Science is JUST a tool. The early practitioners of modern science, men such as Newton and Faraday, viewed scientific inquiry into “natural” phenomena as a means of opening new windows of understanding the mind of God. Why are Christians threatened by the findings of science? It’s not science but the materialists and their arguments we need to refute. Science

    Your discussion has helped advance the cause of finding common ground; perhaps most importantly, the example of two brothers in Christ who can disagree in love.

25. Richard Walker on May 28th, 2008 8:49 am

    Having a degree in abstract math and 30+ years experience in software/systems design and development, I’d like to make a couple of comments on Rich’s statements about “information” and DNA. It seems that his premise is that if the cell’s development has influences other than just the DNA (e.g., ERVs) then DNA does not contain information. This is clearly a non-sequitur, but then Rich did not directly answer Del’s question about the connection of DNA and information. Rich stated

    “From a computer perspective, I the programmer did not program this in. It’s also why computer viruses are called viruses because they inject code that is not part of the original design intent. Endogenous retroviruses basically disprove design intent of the genome.”

    This statement could be true, but only if one limits the programmer to just the DNA. We mustn’t forget that a computer program does not function in a vacuum. At its fundamental level, a computer program consists of coded information which must be interpreted and acted upon by the computer. Furthermore, within a networked environment a computer does not act alone, but rather in concert with other computers and devices. In such interaction, it is not unusual for additional programming to be “injected” into a computer in order to modify the behavior of the already resident programming. When browsing the internet, the browser program (e.g. Firefox) is often injected with javascript programming which then executes within the context of the browser. To claim that the Firefox program is not information for this reason is ludicrous. In fact, Firefox was deliberately “designed” to accommodate just such code injections.

    One could correctly argue that the javascript example is not analogous to what an ERV does within a cell in that the ERV modifies the original programming. However, I’ve written self-modifying code that was designed to be modified by the environment in order to adapt its behavior appropriately. This was being done primarily in the days when memory was extremely limited and we could not afford the luxury of directly programming for all cases to be handled. The result was certainly more compact, but also more difficult to do properly. For this reason, self-modifying code was long ago forbidden to be used within military weapon systems, for example.

    We need to extend our thinking from just the DNA to the entire system, including not just the cell containing the DNA, but also the networked environment of the cell encompassing other cells, ERVs, communication pathways, etc. When this is considered, the claim that the injected “code is not part of the original design intent” is seen to be false and the “design intent of the genome” remains intact. In fact, our appreciation of what the Designer has done only increases.

    Lastly, we must avoid the error of thinking that what we observe today is exactly as designed originally. This type of thinking ignores the effects of the Fall recorded in scripture. This fundamental logic flaw seems to permeate both atheistic and theistic evolutionary thinking. (Well, actually this is not a logic flaw in the case of atheistic thinking as their assumed axioms preclude both God and the fall.) Once the fall is considered the often heard complaint that the observed effects of viruses, for example, are “evil” and thus preclude the design of God is nullified.

26. Bob Ruggeri on May 28th, 2008 9:21 am

    Thank you Rich and Del for a thorough and honest dialogue. I have to admit, one year ago I probably would have leaned toward Rich’s argument being the most believable since until recently I’ve always had difficulty in the literal interpretaion of Genesis. However, through The Truth Project and other resources including this dialogue, God is answering my prayer to more capably defend my faith by strengthening my own!

    Why would God go through the trouble of creating “evolution” when he is omnipotent? Everything He does and the way he does it has a purpose … what is the purpose of creating man in His image through evolution?

    Whether by witnessing the Triune Nature of God which really is “clearly seen” everywhere (Romans 1) or the laws of thermodynamics, God’s true nature and design is visible to the layman in everyday life or to the physicist through more thorough scientific observation.

    I look forward to your continued discussion as God reveals His Truth through you both!

    Bob R.

27. Tom Conant on May 28th, 2008 9:21 am

    Del,

    This was great. The one thing I have not seen in the debate is alluded to in Mike W’s first question. If God created through the process of evolution (theistic evolution) then death preceded sin. I understand the Bible to teach that it was sin that brought death, not just to human beings but to the entire realm of created things. I can’t reconcile the God described in the Bible using death as part of His creative process.

    Any thoughts?

    God bless,

    Tom

28. Melissa on May 28th, 2008 10:48 am

    I think it interesting how scientists “personalize” impersonal nouns as in Rich’s statement: The development of the human placenta took advantage of human endogenous retro-virus W (HERV-W). Even as a believer, he is using the standard “science” mode of talking nonsense to avoid attributing design to the Designer. How can “development” “take advantage?” I, for one, am tired of this Bill Clinton “trickle down” culture of whatever the meaning of “is, is.” talk. (And by the way, how did our distant ancestors reproduce before this virus-induced placenta? At 20-40 million years ago, was this after the fall of man, or before? Maybe this was the year Eve evolved and got the first placenta in order to birth Cain and Abel. But then, that would mean there was death before the fall. Hmmmm, I guess I still don’t see how you can believe the literal Bible and believe in evolution.)

    I was recently doing some research for teaching a space-themed VBS and was amazed by NASA’s website. On their frequently asked questions pages about origins they had no real position (except an assumption about evolutionary processes), but to answer the question “Why does it matter?” they stated that humans have an “intrinsic need to explore.” Wow! Apparently scientists can claim anything that promotes the reaction they desire, which is exactly what you’re saying, Del. It all depends on the presuppositions. I’d love to see more scientists see and admit that.

29. Ray on May 28th, 2008 11:45 am

    Rich writes: “As an organization, the ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue. This includes the issue of origins.”

    I wasn’t aware there was any disagreement among Christians with regard to origins. I thought “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” pretty much settles it. Perhaps I’m missing something.

30. Nancy Brimhall on May 28th, 2008 12:47 pm

    I was a happy evolutionary creationist until I realized that evolution implies progressive complexity and sophistication of organisms. That seems to contradict the Biblical account that there was an endpoint to creation at which time God declared it “good.” That “goodness” was then destroyed by man’s disobedience. If you believe in evolutionary creationism, it seems to me you have to believe the process continues and mankind can continue to evolve more advanced characteristics, whether used for good or evil.

31. Richard Walker on May 28th, 2008 1:56 pm

    Nancy,

    You are so right. However, it doesn’t stop with the idea that everything in the universe continues to evolve….many consider that God Himself is continuing to change and evolve. This is called “Process Theology” in which the only absolute recognized is change itself.

32. Mike Weaver on May 28th, 2008 6:12 pm

    Doug M.

    What I was referring to is what you would probably call hyper-calvinism. It’s the implication that every person is damned until one day, bang! God turned the lights on and now you are forever saved. You’re saved because God pointed at you and it’s just too bad for those to whom He doesn’t point to. I believe that when God sent His Son, He was pointing at the whole world. Of couse He foreknew all those who would be His.

    I think that there is a very large segement of the modern Church that is for all practical purposes living in secluded theological monasteries. In our scientific and technological culture it is more important than ever that our evangelistic efforts are based on reasonable and logical arguments. Assuming that people don’t appreciate Bible thumping because God hasn’t turned the lights on, allows us not to pursue the harder work of engaging our culture on every level. Not the least of which is the scientific realm!

    What I am saying is that personal salvation is, for most, a journey. (and it continues through sanctification) And that journey for some, may begin by studying a flower or the human eye. The work of truth is the work of God. Those who love the truth and pursue it will inevitably find themselves “hunted down” by the God who loves them. And we, the “captured”, need to surrender ourselves to every possible means and method by which God may use to bring unbelievers to the knowlege of the truth.

    Rich,

    Are you saying that more complexity equals less evidence for a designer? Do you believe that about sky scrapers? Isn’t it true that most observable mutations lead to less functionality? Isn’t it a well established fact that things in the universe are winding down and not up? Brother Rich, you were made in the image of God, the monkey was not.

    Love to you and yours,

    Mike W.

33. Mike Weaver on May 29th, 2008 4:41 am

    Rich,

    The Truth Project helped to solidify the importance of having a harmonious worldview in my life. I agree with you about the importance of holding to the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Would you agree that those basic tenets speak harmoniously to all areas of life? So here’s some more questions in regards to how trying to making evolution fit with the bible might affect your views in other areas.

    Why was it wrong for Cain to kill Able?
    Would it be wrong for half humans to murder?

    If we came into being through right mutations what about people with wrong mutations? Are they less human?

    What about the sanctity of life at conception?

    What good can you see in the image of God if it’s an image that creates through such a cruel process as survival of the fittest?

    Mike W.

34. Damon on May 29th, 2008 8:38 am

    Hi Del and Rich,

    I am thankful for this discussion; I have been in prayer, study and teaching on the subject of creation and evolution over the past 10 years. I fall into the literal creation camp in part b/c it is “plain” and consistent with the entirety of God’s word; but also because of the “scientific complexity”. Being a doctor I am excited to explore God’s creation to the level researchers and scientists have been blessed to produce. I am very excited that God has lifted people/scientists up within the Christian fellowship to share His wonder as I feel we have only scratched the surface of what we may be able to explore now and in eternity. Del, I appreciate your heart and your passion to this ministry. Rich, I must say after listening to many that share a similar position, I really feel your heart as a brother and I am thankful you shared your views in a loving and respectful way. Blessings, Damon

35. Rick Baugh on May 29th, 2008 9:48 am

    I’m very encouraged to see other Christians indicate that our origin, as indicated by Genesis, matters. I’m reading “The Long War Against God” by Dr. Henry Morris (highly recommended), which documents how evolutionary theory has been used to “scientifically justify” the greatest evils of the 19th and 20th centuries. From social Darwinism practiced in business (“survival of the fittest” robber-Baron businessmen), to forced sterilization in this country justified by Eugenics, Planned Parenthood and abortion, to Hitler’s Nazi holocaust and more; all are fruits of the tree of Darwinian evolution. Jesus said “By their fruits you shall know them.” By these fruits we can know that all theories of evolution are all evil and definitely NOT “of God”. It’s not simply a misapplication of a “good” idea. As Dr. Morris points out, each of the perpetrators of these evils were merely reaching a logical conclusion from their beliefs in evolution and the practical application of that belief.

    As Mike W. alludes to here, allowing for “billions of years” of Earth history and evolution raises serious questions about Genesis and our faith. That would mean Adam had ancestors who, presumably, had died before “original sin”. What, then, was the warning from God that Adam would “surely die” if he ate of the forbidden tree? What was God’s curse of the ground if there had already been thorns, disease and death (as evidenced by fossils) before Adam? Some say the Genesis creation story is allegorical, but it gives the reason why Christ had to die on the cross. Did Christ die allegorically? Or if these are just allegorical stories (of which there is NO indication that this is how they were intended), then at what point in Genesis does history begin? How do we tell? Or, as a college professor once said, “At what point does God start telling the truth?”

    Evolution has been used as a pry-bar by our schools to separate our children from faith in the authority of God’s Word as the ultimate source of Truth. Once that is done, it is a short step to atheism, paganism, new-age spiritualism, and all the ills we see around us.

36. Rev. Dr. Mark Philips on May 29th, 2008 10:34 am

    Thanks to both of you for lively loving dialogue.
    2 thoughts:
    FIRST: ‘Random’ in 1st Kings 22:34 does not imply a “theology of randomness” on God’s part. It reveals God’s sovereignty and omniscience (yes science is part of that word). That Hebrew word for ‘random’ is an ‘adventure at simple leisure,’ i.e., the archer did not take specific aim, but God’s prophetic design was apparent through his ‘at-leisure’ release. It would be a tortuous application of Scripture to make a case for a random methodology of God’s action in creation and observable eco/bio-systems. You cannot build a randomness theory from this verse, as Del rightly pointed out from Romans 1, a single example of many in Scripture (another: the whole universe groans in entropy as a result of man’s sin, not God’s design – Romans 5:12-20 & 8:20-23).
    SECOND: Theistic evolution implies a theological basis for its proposals and it is just plain bad theology to put death chronologically before sin, yet that is necessary in theistic evolution. Sin came after man and death came after sin, so death must come after man according to the plain truth of Scripture.

    Again thanks to both of you for your love of God, fellow saints, and a heart for the lost. May our dialogue encourage and lift up one another in the blessed hope found in Christ Jesus.

    In His Peace and Truth,
    Rev. Dr. Mark Phillips

    PS – We very much enjoyed and are continuing to enjoy the Truth Project at Christ Church. Thanks for the good work, Dr. Tackett! Hope all is well with you…

37. eric newsome on May 30th, 2008 6:26 pm

    i will admit that i could not read through all of this, but here are my thoughts on the age of the earth:

    Believers reject the idea that the earth could be older than 10,000 years, but they do not look at it from the perspective that time may pass slower now than it did back then. Although an observer would never know the difference.

    think about a few things:

    what was the source of light before the sun was created?

    what perspective was used in the first six days?

    how does that compare to the perspective (or writers point of view) after creation was complete?

    the average age of man slowly decreased over the first centuries and beyond. humans average the same number of heartbeats per lifespan. could it be that the heart rate was consistent, but in the beginning it took 300 years to get to 50 billion beats but now it only takes 90 years to get to 50 billion beats?
    wouldn’t that mean that time has slowed down since the first centuries?
    or do you think that our heart rate has slowed down?
    or do you think that we get less heartbeats per lifespan now?
    there is no evidence for the latter two.

    more likely is that the in the time it used to take for 300 years to pass (solar cycles) we now only can fit about 90 years.

    maybe this timeline will help you visualize this:

    back then

    now

    always

    i am not sure about the 50 billion number, but it is very consistent. your heart has limits.

    this is not saying that God had to have millions of years to create. It was still 6 days. The earth is still young.
    It just explains why, when looking back into history, we see so much age (starlight, earth layers, moon craters, etc).
    Yet at the same time, from a Biblical perspective (history recorded as it happened) the earth seems so young.

    anyway, none of it makes much difference. this view fits with Biblical creation. Aside from that, I do believe that God created the laws of the universe and all matter in the universe and used those things to create what we see today.

    Miracles and such that followed show his ability to use the laws that he created to his benefit. That doesn’t mean he had to circumvent those laws, but that he could use them for His own plans.

    Please let me know what you think about this. I rarely here people talk about creation from this perspective, yet i believe it explains much about the so-called conflict between science and the Bible.

    eric
    >

38. Dan Hagan on May 31st, 2008 8:18 am

    Well said, Dr. Philips.

    Those things that we discern as being random and unpredictable, are simply very good examples of our human limitations — exposed.

    EVERYTHING was foreseen and expected by God before creation! Nothing is random to our sovereign Creator!

    In Christ,

    Dan…

39. eric newsome on May 31st, 2008 11:07 am

    Apparently my little illustration did not work on the blog.

    The intent was to show an equal amount of hearbeats measuring up against 300 years in the past and 90 years in the present.

    I will try again:

    -3 0 0 y e a r s- back then

    -9 0 y e a r s- now

    -50 bilion hearbeats- always

40. shernren on June 2nd, 2008 12:42 am

    I would like to say that this dialogue encouraged me greatly. I am regularly active on an online forum where we discuss these issues and this level of cool-headedness is simply amazing. Kudos to both dialoguers, and the commenters, for the harmony. Surely it comes about because we recognize that our unity in Christ precedes our disagreements over this issue.

    As someone who aims to be a scientist in the future (and who accepts the validity of evolution as the best currently available biological explanation of the relevant evidence), I would like to make a comment about the idea of science and its evidence for God, which I think is best summed up by this comment Del made near the end:

    “I believe that Rich has stated his underlying belief that science cannot detect the work of God because science must confine itself to the natural realm. “Scientists” can detect it, but not “science”. I believe this implies that the detection can only come through blind faith alone and not through empirical evidence. This presumes several things that I believe are false.”

    For me it comes down to the simple observation that more often than not, belief or unbelief in God does not affect the empirical results one obtains. Go into a lab and dot penicillin on a plate of bacteria; pray before you dot penicillin onto a second plate. Does the prayer make a difference? Not likely. I’ve prayed for good experimental results before; sometimes I get good results, sometimes I don’t.

    And it’s like that as well in normal life. You don’t want a doctor just to pray for you and let you go; you want him to give you medicine that according to randomized trials and pharmaceutical knowledge etc. will make you better. You don’t want a mechanic just to pray for your car and then leave it in the garage until it works; you want him to use his experience and scientific knowledge to fix the thing. Why not in science as well?

    To me as a Christian scientist, we need to acknowledge that God will be known only as He makes Himself known. And in my line of work it seems that His hand is always a little more subtle than we’d like it to be. We cannot simply begin with the fact that nature is creation, work through this with our human reason, and conclude that God must be scientifically detectable. We need to respect God’s mode of revelation.

    Does that mean God can’t be known in creation? Certainly not. It *does* mean that His presence in and ownership of creation, as far as we can see, is not reducible to some set of formulae or hypotheses that we can throw into a laboratory experiment to see whether we can prove or disprove the existence of God. To look up at the night sky and be overwhelmed by wonder and the knowledge that all this is created – that is not the same as analyzing the spectra of a million stars and manipulating them to find the metallicity of our galaxy and hence how old it is. Finding the metallicity of the galaxy may help some geeks feel closer to God, I don’t know. But it wouldn’t *help* most normal people know God, and it certainly won’t *cause* a knowledge of God.

    That requires a non-scientific outlook on things. And if you object that this is “blind faith” look carefully: who told you that a non-scientific outlook is blind? Certainly not the Bible, certainly not Jesus. In this sense ID and atheists may be said to operate from the same starting assumptions: the scientific mode of verification is the most important and the most truthful, and any knowledge of God from nature that is not mediated by science is ultimately a manifestation of “blind faith”. Rationalism is the obvious enemy; but it also manufactures many of the weapons we think we can use to fight atheism. And fighting Satan with weapons forged by his anvil will not work.

41. Russ Ripley on June 2nd, 2008 11:03 am

    An amazing conversation.

    I would like to comment on just one point. Rich mentioned (way up above) that the essentials of Christ are the most important, then comes evolution and creation. I would disagree. Without the Biblical view of creation, there is no “original sin”. Without the original sin, there isn’t a need for Jesus and His sacrificial death. I believe that is the ‘heart’ of evolution. If you remove the origin of sin, you remove the entire premise for Jesus (and really, the Bible). Jesus spoke about Creation, when he said “In the beginning God created them, male and female”. He also spoke of the flood and Jonah and the great fish. Jesus is either who He said He was (God in the flesh) or He was a nut and the Bible is either true or not. Jesus did not leave us the luxury of picking what we want and leaving rest.

    Because He lives,
    Russ

42. Dan on June 2nd, 2008 11:23 am

    I find it interesting that so many Christians read the Bible as though it was written from, and for, a 21st century Western viewpoint. It was written over a period of thousands of years in a culture completely different than our own. GENESIS MUST BE UNDERSTOOD WITHIN THE CULTURE IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN!

    Why do we think the Bible addresses modern scientific issues? That was not its point, nor its purpose. While regarding the Bible to be true, if what we see in science does not match up with the Bible, could it be that our interpretation or understanding of the Bible (or even our theology) is wrong? After all, the various theologies are a product of man, and just as fallible as science. All Christians have the same source for their theology…the Bible, and yet we hold diametrically opposed views on many issues. Obviously the “plain reading” of Scripture must not be so plain, why else are their so many denominations?

    I’m sure the church experienced growing pains when it became abundantly clear that the earth was not fixed in space and was not the center of the universe (contrary to the “plain” reading of Scripture), thus changing the interpretation and understanding of some Scripture. I think we are experiencing the same growing pains now, since the evidence is abundantly clear that we share ancestors with the rest of God’s creation.

    Why is it that no one is pushing for the teaching of the Hebrew “dome”-model of cosmology? What if the weather segment of the local news simply consisted of the weatherman saying “God’s going send the rain on the just and the unjust today”. How does that help our understanding of the physical world?

    Moving on to the subject of randomness…God can (and did) use randomness. Look at the frequent use of “casting lots”.

    Did the importance of man in the eyes of God change when we discovered that the earth is not the center of the solar system? Does the importance of man in the eyes of God change now that it’s been proven through the mapping of the human genome that we share common ancestors with other members of God’s creation? No! Furthermore, the method of creation does not free us from the moral responsibility and free will God has given us. It’s a false conclusion to think that evolution absolves us from moral responsibility.

    Why are we scared of the truth? I posit that it’s because people put more faith in the Bible (making it a fourth member of the Trinity) than they do in Christ.

43. Dan Hagan on June 2nd, 2008 9:24 pm

    Dear Dan,

    Regarding God and what we perceive as being random or chaotic; for our Creator, nothing is without purpose, cause, or beyond His understanding. To informally extend on this a bit, I believe it is accurate to say that God can’t be surprised!

    You mention God using the “casting of lots”. Actually “lots” were used in the bible by the people of the bible. (Perhaps this is what you meant?) There is of course the Romans who gambled (by casting lots) for Jesus’ clothing during the crucifixion. Otherwise, “the casting of lots” generally happened at the specific instruction of God. One Old Testament example might be where “lots” are used during the annual Hebrew Rite known as the – “Day of Atonement”; where one goat is chosen for one purpose (sacrifice) and the other is left for the purpose of being the “sin bearer” and was later driven from the Hebrew camp (along with all of Israel’s sins) and disposed of per God’s instructions. Both animals were required to be without blemish and it is my interpretation (guess) that casting lots to decide each animal’s fate was to keep sinful man completely out of the picture. Put another way, this put the decision entirely into God’s hands.

    Lastly, I’m not aware of any bible references that spoke to the earth’s relationship to the sun or the earth’s orbital characteristics. “Flat earth” science was a product of ignorance alone. And yes, the early church was guilty of this ignorance also. But I’m not sure it was biblically motivated. The bible tells us how self-centered man is and I would say that this has been proven countless times in recorded history. Our self-centeredness is precisely why we would be completely lost without God’s constant intervention and the eternal salvation offered through faith in His Son, Jesus.

    Brother Dan, respectfully, no true Christian is afraid of “the truth”! You see, Jesus Christ was Truth!

    John 1:14 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    Yours, in Christ,

    Dan

44. Mark on June 3rd, 2008 9:32 am

    Dan writes – Why are we scared of the truth? I posit that it’s because people put more faith in the Bible (making it a fourth member of the Trinity) than they do in Christ.

    A clear example of why this discussion is so important to have. Dan has bought into the lie (false doctrine, worldview) that says it is OK to seperate the eternal Christ from scripture. The Bible is not God’s word and thus is no better than any other self help book etc…It is only logical for him and others to begin to seperate God’s word from Truth, submitting God’s Truth to his worldly presuppostions about science and the authority it holds over God’s perfect clarity – His word! No offense Dan, but you have made a series of truth claims – presuppostions that are patently false and unsupported regarding your personal interpretation of scripture. Spiritual maturity is using God’s word to compare what the world accepts as Truth – discernment is key.

    There is a fork in the road we all must come to – My way, or God’s way?

45. Dan on June 5th, 2008 10:03 am

    Please point out where I said the Bible is not God’s Word. I never said that. I simply said that it’s possible our interpretation, in this specific case Genesis, is wrong. Furthermore I never separated Christ from scripture. In fact, the purpose of Scripture is to point us toward Christ, not to be a science book (which is my point).

    Just because we have an English translation of Scripture, and we can understand the English WORDS does not equate to understanding the original writer’s intended MEANING. Without an understanding of the culture and historic context in which a passage was written we may come to a wrong understanding of what a certain passage of Scripture means. Look at how the early church (Augustine in particular) handled the idea of the antipodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodes)

    The fact that you disagree with me shows that interpretation is not just a matter of “plain” reading of Scripture. My view of scripture is based on a Wesleyan view of Scripture. We believe Scripture to be inerrant in matters of faith. We understand the purpose of Scripture to be a vehicle toward a relationship with Christ, not a science book. In fact, history shows that the church has changed its understanding and interpretation of Scripture.

46. Mark on June 6th, 2008 12:25 pm

    Dan states… in this specific case Genesis, is wrong.

    You have just stated God’s word is wrong. Either God is incapable of giving us His word, perfect and complete, or He never did. “Interpretation” is not the problem sir – the clarity of scripture usually offends those living in rebellion to it. Lastly, the “church” has not changed its “understanding and interpretation of Scripture”, there has always been oppostion to false doctrine – the Roman Papacy etc..doctrinal purity won the day, unity was not as important.

47. Hamilton on June 6th, 2008 4:42 pm

    On the subject of whether the Bible addressed cosmology, or endorsed an earth-centered or sun-centered universe, that’s an oft-believed myth.

    The church officials who persecuted Galileo, for instance, cited him for contradicting Aristotle, not the Bible. His “sin” was in not paying homage to the pagan Greek cosmology!

48. Drew on June 8th, 2008 4:46 pm

    With this whole arguement over the true meaning of Genesis, there is one important fact to consider in regards to time.

    For instance, God’s time is not of our time.

    II Peter 3:8

    “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

    Knowing that Genesis is part of God’s Word, we also have to take into consideration that God’s reference to a “day” is in fact a thousand years to us.

    Therefore, I feel that II Peter 3:8 serves the purpose of informing us of God’s time being different than our time.

    The time of God is also referenced in the Old Testament, in Psalms.

    Psalms 90:4

    “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is passt, and as a watch in the night.”

    With all this knowledge provided by the Bible, we can conclude that “literally”, the definition of a day in Genesis is a thousand years in our present-day view of time.

    That way, the Word of God is not questioned by our own interpretations, but is upheld by other parts of His Word.

    Drew

49. Dan Graber on June 8th, 2008 11:50 pm

    Are Christians or Creationists being expelled from the scientific community?

    The answer is found in 2 Peter 3: 3-6. 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

    Here Peter tells us the world was created out of water and subsequently destroyed by water, and this world view is in conflict with the scoffers world view that, “everything goes on as it has from the beginning.” This is the theory of uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology. These have permeated every field of science and every classroom.

    Insert the Grand Canyon into 2 Peter 3:4 – “ever since our fathers died the erosion in the canyon continues as it has since the beginning of creation.” The scoffers world view says “as far as I can tell the current processes are sufficient to explain the changes I see in structure.” But the scoffers deliberately forget the formation by water and destruction by the flood.

    Although, Intelligent Design does not embrace these acts of God such as the flood, it does challenge the scoffers world view.

50. Rick McCloy on June 13th, 2008 7:10 am

    I have a question for Rich. I hope it is not too late, I just found this site. The question is three part.
    Do you believe that the Darwinian theory of evolution has been proven scientifically to be fact? If “yes” why is there so much controversy surrounding this issue? And if “No” Why shouldn’t other theories of the origin of life be taught in school?

51. Greg Voth on June 23rd, 2008 10:10 pm

    I’ll offer an answer to Rick McCloy–although the question was not directed to me:

    “Do you believe that the Darwinian theory of evolution has been proven scientifically to be fact? If “yes” why is there so much controversy surrounding this issue? And if “No” Why shouldn’t other theories of the origin of life be taught in school?”

    Many of us who are evolutionary creationists view the broad strokes of the evolutionary picture of the history of the universe and of life as a fact that is beyond reasonable doubt. There is simply no other way to interpret the data from the cosmic microwave background, from radiometric dating, and from geology other than with the picture of a 13.7 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old earth. There is also no adequate way to interpret the progression of fossils in the geological strata other than as an increasing complexity of life over billions of years on earth. There is no reasonable interpretation of the amazingly detailed common patterns in the DNA of mice and chimpanzees and humans other than common ancestry. (See Francis Collins’ book “The Language of God” for details)

    The reason for the controversy on this issue is quite simple. The story of the history of life on earth told by scientific measurements does not agree with traditional interpretations of various religions and with what many people want to believe about themselves. It takes years of training to understand the scientific data, and so many people choose to stick with what they were taught rather than to trust the scientific measurements. It has been a painful road for me to learn on the path to at PhD in physics that the young earth creationism that my family believes and that I was taught in Christian schools can not stand up to careful comparison with clear measurements.

    Now there are many issues that remain unclear. We really have no clear scientific data on the origin of the first cells. Many questions about the mechanisms of specific evolutionary changes remain unclear. I see God’s miraculous involvement as a possibility here–but He could have used natural mechanisms as well. Opponents of evolution often want to teach these things in the schools…and that would be ok if they wanted to inspire students to solve the remaining problems. But many of these opponents actually want to undermine the student’s confidence in basic facts described above–which ends up undermining their ability to understand many parts of science. And so we scientists who are Christians are left the impossible choice between supporting fellow believers whose goals ultimately undermine science education or supporting athiests whose goals include extinguishing religious belief.

    I prayerfully try to point out that many dedicated Christians from Augustine to current leaders like Tim Keller have viewed metaphorical readings of Genesis as compatible with Christian faith. And I try to help people understand science when I can. But I have been disappointed that so many like the Truth Project continue to proclaim that evolutionary science and Christian faith are enemies. In the coming century when children will likely be sent home from the hospital with their DNA already sequenced, religious belief that ties itself to bad science will drift to the margins of society. But there are many like Rich Blinne and Francis Collins who are pointing out that the Gospel and the best science are both God’s revelation of Himself.

52. Rick McCloy on June 28th, 2008 7:23 am

    Greg, thank you for your comments, I appreciate your response.

    There just seems to be too many assumptions and too much inferring made to say that evolution is “fact… beyond a reasonable doubt”. Because it appears that the fossils were laid down in the strata over many years we assume that there is an evolutionary progression from the deep ones to the shallower ones. However, there doesn’t seem to be much credence given to the lack of things in between. As far back as you can go in the fossil record an ameba is an ameba, a fish is a fish and a bird is a bird, there is nothing in between. Another assumption is, because things have similar DNA we assume they have the same ancestor. Sometimes I wonder if it’s not the tail wagging the dog, [Since evolution is fact beyond a reasonable doubt then two things with similar DNA must have a common ancestor]. It’s like we have to make things up to fit it into what we believe to be true. Why can’t we, as you stated, “see God’s miraculous involvement as a possibility”? We can compare a motorcycle to a bicycle or a fork to a spoon and see similarities in the structure and material used, but they are not the same things. Can’t we conclude that they didn’t evolve randomly but were designed for a particular purpose?

    The radiometric dating calculation also has its assumptions as well. The one assumption I find most offensive though, is if you doubt evolution you can’t possibly believe in best science. Probably the most dangerous assumption of all is to assume that science can somehow explain how God created the universe.

    My point is this: We really need to keep science in perspective. Believe me I enjoy and appreciate science very much. In fact being in the healthcare field I understand the importance of science. I wouldn’t have a job without it. But what is science really? – Science is the study of the physical universe through observation and experimentation. I believe God gave us this ability to keep the wonder and amazement of his glory and majesty within us, not to be used to explain Him away or to undermine his Word. Science is observing the clouds in amazement at the endless forms and changing shapes. It is studying the process of photosynthesis in plants and trees (it is an incredible design). It is studying the water cycle from evaporation to condensation to stone filtering to finding it is the only fluid that floats when it freezes and realizing that if any part of that cycle doesn’t work, life would not exists on earth. He has allowed us to go in any direction from there. We can look up to an endless space filled with order and precession, where we can calculate the next solar eclipse to a fraction of a second. I can not fathom how this order can be the result of randomness. We can also go in the other direction and study what also appears to be endless, the microscopic world of cells and atomic particles. It goes on and on without limit.

    I would also like to point out that to use science for the betterment of society i.e. healthcare, environment, etc. it is not necessary to believe in evolution or to even understand the theory. It is perfectly acceptable to study things like DNA, magnetism and beta particles and use the data gleaned from it to treat patients and still believe in a literal seven day creation week. So to say that this is bad science and that the best science is to believe in evolution is erroneous. There is one thing we do know about science, to prove something as scientific fact it has to be both observable and repeatable and since the origin of the universe can never be repeated and it wasn’t observed by man, science will never be able to prove evolution as fact. Therefore, it will forever be a theory and a theory without the possibility of proof is nothing more than faith, not science.

    I guess I should change my original question to “why are we teaching evolution in the science classroom in the first place?” It really should be left to the Comparative Religion class.

53. Molly Beich on July 2nd, 2008 4:55 pm

    Greg, I read Francis Collins’ book, “The Language of God” and did not find the same validity in his arguments that you have. He makes many assumptions. For instance, he considers the sections of the DNA whose function is not readily apparent or understood (which is still most of it) to be “junk” — leftover bits from presumed evolutionary precursers with no current purpose. Over and over we have seen that body parts which used to be labeled “vestigial” to try to support evolution have been found to have important and complex functions. This is happening on the molecular level as well, as the unanticipated complexity of DNA functioning is being increasingly revealed.

    In his book, Collins compares a bit of human DNA with mouse DNA and says that because the two are truncated in the same way, this proves that one must have come from the other. He assumes that this clipping was the result of a unique mutation that must have occurred in some common ancestor at some point during the evolutionary process and been passed on. However, since many biological processes are similar or identical among mammals, there is no reason to assume that some parts of the DNA would not look or function similarly or identically, and no reason to presume that the only explanation for a shortened piece of DNA is “random mutation”. Aside from this one argument, there is very little attempt to show any actual scientific evidence for evolution — Collins’ reasoning is almost entirely speculative or philosophical. And there is very little attempt to refute the substantial evidence from DNA that is adverse to evolutionary theory. I was disappointed with this from a leading geneticist. Collins suggests that to offer anything other than a naturalistic explanation for what “science” isn’t seeing is to “put God in the gaps.” But what I saw is that there are indeed unbelievably huge gaps, and what has been stuffed in those gaps is not God, but unsubstantiated evolutionary hyperbole. Re-examine the foundations of these ideas — they’re not nearly as sturdy as “science” likes to portray them and there are indeed reasonable and convincing arguments against them.

54. Greg Voth on July 6th, 2008 9:34 pm

    Rick McCloy,

    Thanks for your comments also…it is not that often that I find fruitful discussions of these issues.

    I agree that a goal is to keep the science in perspective. Science doesn’t tell us everything we need to know about life. But keeping science in proper perspective also requires us to accept clear messages God gives us through the universe he allows us to observe. I can’t accept that God would tell us the truth in the scriptures and then tell us the opposite from the signs he left us in the created order. So we have to study the scriptures and the created order and figure out how it all fits together. Humans easily misinterpret both the scriptures and the science.

    Let me first discuss the ‘similar DNA similar function’ idea. Molly Beich mentioned this also. The amount that is understood about DNA is vast, and discussions at this level probably don’t do it justice…but let me try. There are specific sequences that indicate the beginning and end of a gene, called introns and exons. There are also regions of repeated sequences at the end of a chromosome called telomeres (see wikipedia for example to get the details). Some of the DNA evidence for evolutionary relationships lies in our ability to find these markers and then compare the nearby sequences that code for certain proteins. Humans have one fewer chromosome than chimpanzees. But when we look at human chromosome 2, we find that it contains telomeres near its center…and the rest of the genes line up to indicate that it was created by a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes. This has a very natural evolutionary explanation–the chimpanzee genome is like that of our common ancestor, but the human chromosomes fused together. But in a young earth creationist view it is hard to understand why God would make our genome by splicing together two chromosomes from chimpanzees. Another example is the vitamin C gene which we have in just the place other mammals do, but our version has mutations so that we can not make vitamin C, and so we have to get vitamin C from our diet. Several species of primates including chimpanzees have the same mutation that humans have, indicating that the mutation occurred in a common ancestor.

    This isn’t philosophy or comparative religion. These are specific measurable properties of living creatures. Evolutionary theory makes predictions about what we would expect to find in relationships between the DNA of different species, and measurements consistently show that it is right.

    About ‘observable and repeatable’: The book “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution” by Deborah and Loren Haarsma has a nice discussion of this. There are actually many things that we know based on scientific evidence that are not repeatable or directly observable. If you see a forest full of trees that are mostly about 30 years old, but contains a few much older trees…and you then find burn marks 30 years ago in each old tree that you examine, then you can conclude scientifically that a forest fire happened 30 years ago, even thought the fire has not been observed or repeated. Its effects have been observed and we understand enough about trees and fires to reconstruct what happened.

    Well this got longer than I expected, and I’ve got to go. Blessings, Greg

55. Rick McCloy on July 15th, 2008 7:17 am

    Gary,

    I agree with you, discussions like these are very enjoyable and I appreciate the opportunity.

    I am not an expert on DNA, although it is an interesting topic that I would like to learn more about some day. Having said that, I believe that what you have stated about the introns, exons and telomeres is accurate and the fact that these things can be observed and studied makes it definitely fall within the boundaries of science. I think where we begin to fall outside of science and begin to approach the “comparative religion “ aspect is when we make statements like “…that it was created by a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes” and “the chimpanzee genome is like that of our common ancestor”, now we are making assumptions. The fact is there are similarities and there are differences between the human and chimpanzee chromosomes, that part is science. Now if we want to believe in evolution we can make those statements above and say things like “it is hard to understand why God would make our genome by splicing together two chromosomes from chimpanzees” on the other hand we can say that an all powerful, all knowing, amazing God designed and created the best chromosome there could be and used it in multiple creatures modifying it only slightly, this is the comparative religion part.

    I think the tail is wagging the dog again when we also make statements like evolution makes predictions about what we might find in the DNA. First of all I’m not convinced that evolution even predicted that we had DNA in the first place. Second, the only predictions that evolution could have made about the relationships in DNA were that there would be similarities and differences. Or maybe I’m wrong. Did the evolutionary theory actually predict that humans would have one less chromosome than chimpanzees and that the human chromosome would be two chimpanzee chromosomes fused together in the middle? Was that prediction made before we actually started measuring and studying the DNA? Just by looking you could predict that there would be similarities in the DNA. We both have four extremities, one head, ten fingers and toes, two eyes, etc.

    As far as the forest fire example, that actually is repeatable and observable. There have been many forest fires that someone actually witnessed and have observed the condition of the site many years after. So it would be easy to draw that conclusion and if anyone ever challenged it, the experiment could be conducted once again. Where the issue gets sticky is if we begin to conclude we know the intent of the person starting the fire. Was it on purpose or was it an accident? Was it controlled or did it run wild on its own? You could look at those trees all day long and you will never be able to answer those questions. We could even take this one step further if you would indulge me. Suppose we had a written testimony from the person that claimed he started the fire to clear an area for farming. If we didn’t find any evidence of a farm or crops should we dismiss that statement and assume that it was started by lighting? I believe these are the types of speculations the theory of evolution is making.

    Sorry for rambling and thank you for listening. Blessings to you as well. Rick

56. Rick McCloy on July 15th, 2008 7:19 am

    Sorry Greg for the typo. I think i said Gary. Sorry.

57. Carolyn on July 17th, 2008 5:55 pm

    Wow! This is really all very interesting, but totally over my head. I am just now reading all of the blogs from May 27 through July 17 and I don’t believe anyone has mentioned I Corinthians 1:21-31:

    For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not; that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and the righteousness and sanctification and redemption, that just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

    I Corinthians 2:14

    But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for thay are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

    I really believe that.

58. extremestan on August 15th, 2008 2:41 pm

    This was a very encouraging and though-provoking read! I just wanted to respond quickly to Dr. Tackett’s statement:

    “… ‘Scientists’ can detect it, but not ‘science.’ I believe this implies that the detection can only come through blind faith alone and not through empirical evidence.’

    I do not believe it implies this; to imply this, “scientific observation” would have to be conflated with “observation” in general. When I make observations and perceive God “in them” after evaluation, it is not becaused I used naturalistic methodology. It is because I used reason (in the Kantian sense, experience tempered by logic — avoiding equivocation and contradiction). I have my own personal methodology, which I apply to my experiences, intimate to the point of inexpressibility and complex to the point of inimitability. And this inexpressibility and inimitability makes them ineligible for scientific government, which mandates publicity and functional repetition!

59. Greg Voth on September 13th, 2008 12:17 pm

    I just ran back across this discussion and thought I would add a couple of responses to Rick McCloy’s last comments.

    Science has to contain something beyond a simple list of observed facts. It doesn’t work to attempt to label the “similarities and differences between the human and chimpanzee genome” as science while claiming that any applications of theories to explain the data is beyond science. Evolutionary theory provides a clear explanation of the observed data. A fact that was once thought to be a problem for evolution–that humans have fewer chromosomes than chimpanzees–turns out to greatly strengthen the theory since chromosome fusion naturally explains the observations. This is how science works. You can’t separate science from theorizing, drawing predictions from theories, and comparing these predictions with measurements.

    Whether the forest fire could be repeated is not the point of the example. Even if it could not, we would be perfectly justified in claiming to know when and where the fire occured. The point is that we can know things about the past without repeating or observing it. The whole science of forensics is built on this premise. Because we can repeat and observe bits and pieces of the processes involved enough to understand them, we can reconstruct what happened at a crime scene. Reconstructing the geological and biological history of the earth is exactly the same kind of process.

    Finally, let me comment on Carolyn’s verses from I Corinthians. Those are great verses and they rightly keep us humble about how our knowledge compares with God’s wisdom. However, we Christians should be careful about declaring something “totally over our heads” and then falling back on the scriptural teaching that God has made foolish the wisdom of this world. That easily slides into anti-intellectualism: God knows better so we don’t need to think. You can learn the basics of genomics if you are willing to read a little. If God used evolutionary processes to develop the diversity of living things as the evidence seems to suggest, then he surely is not pleased if don’t try to understand his handiwork and worship him for it.

60. Rick McCloy on October 20th, 2008 10:42 am

    My point is that we can make just about any evidence fit into any theroy we want and because science will never be able to prove what really happened it is all based on beleif and speculation. It is just as viable to say that the genome issue shows common design as it is to say it is common ancestry. Again, there are just too many unanswered questions in the Evolutionary Theory to say it is fact and that there is just no other way. (And then call it sceince). Until it can be proved there is no reason both theories can’t be taught in the science classroom or neither.

61. extremestan on October 28th, 2008 4:22 am

    “It is just as viable to say that the genome issue shows common design as it is to say it is common ancestry.”

    Both would be applicable, but the latter would be more reasonable. In other words, regarding it as common ancestry not only explains the observation, but also explains why it is so, and does so elegantly.

    God’s design is in the finest particles and rules. The product of that “intelligent foundation” is an emergent universe, where persistent energetic and material patterns arrange themselves into infinitely various machines. Among them are the vessels that enjoy spiritual infusion, humans, made in God’s image, not a “goo man,” but instead God’s masterpiece of procedural creation.