Fall 2011

Theistic Evolution Isn’t Fit for Survival

By John A. Bloom

Theistic Evolution is a view held by Christians who believe that Darwinian evolution is true. Some theistic evolutionists believe that God guided the evolutionary process and that Adam and Eve were animals “ensouled” by God, but a vocal group of theistic evolutionists today takes a more radical view, insisting that the conservative evangelical interpretation of Genesis as history needs to change. These theistic evolutionists insist that God did not even guide the evolutionary process, that the Fall never occurred, and that Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden are only myth or metaphors. Proponents of this view, who sometimes call themselves “evolutionary creationists,” often appear on the BioLogos Foundation website and were sympathetically presented in a recent Christianity Today cover story.

The key issue here is this: “Is Darwinism true?” Darwinian evolution appears to occur at a trivial level, like drug resistance in bacteria, but Darwinism is certainly not true on larger scales or helpful in answering crucial questions such as how the major animal groups originated during the Cambrian Explosion (a period of sudden diversification in the fossil record) or where humans came from. (Do we really share a common ancestor with chimps?)

For starters, Darwinists do not have a clue how life first got started “by itself,” as was well documented in the recent movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The genetic code, “the language of life,” turns out not to be a “frozen accident” in DNA, as Francis Crick proposed, but is designed to minimize the mutational change in proteins. We recently discovered that the male Y chromosome between humans and chimps is only about 50 percent similar, and that overall, human and chimp DNA are only about 75 percent similar, not the 98 percent value which we have heard for decades. An explosion of biochemical data over the past 10 years showing the unimaginable complexity of living things has overwhelmed the Darwinian story that somehow everything gradually mutated and was somehow selected, so that here we are. For example, Darwinists did not predict that “junk DNA” and “pseudogenes” — long held to be useless leftovers from the evolutionary process — play critical roles in cell regulation, nor did they anticipate the sheer genius of alternative gene splicing.

A second issue is whether this new, radical theistic evolution view makes theological sense. If God did not even guide the evolutionary process, how is God sovereign over his creation? Did God intentionally make us in his image? If humans gradually evolved, and our sinfulness is merely the inherent selfishness resulting from a Darwinian process, then human history is progress, not corruption, so shouldn’t humans ultimately be good enough not to need a savior? Given Psalm 19:1–3 and Romans 1:20, why must we assume that God’s actions and attributes are absolutely undetectable by science? And if we think that Adam and Eve are mythical, who else is? Noah? Abraham? Moses? Samuel? David? Such skepticism towards the historical accounts in early Genesis (and elsewhere by extension of the same methods) is typical of liberal theology, which historically evangelicals opposed. In fact, many of these same issues began poisoning mainline seminaries a century ago, and led to Biola’s founding.

This is not the time to be deciding what beliefs we should give up in order to help prop up a failing vision in science. In fact, I find it striking that just when the biochemical evidence for Creation is becoming dramatically clearer, some Christians who accept Darwinism as true feel that they must attack Creationists and mythologize important Scriptures. A sober look at what Darwin cannot explain should give them pause and perhaps more respect for their brothers and sisters who have solid scientific and biblical reasons for questioning this prevailing naturalistic paradigm.

 

Online Extra

Looking for more resources on intelligent design and theistic evolution? John Bloom recommends the following books and DVDs for further study and reading, several of which contain detailed information on the studies referenced in this column.

God & Evolution (book and DVD), Jay W. Richards

Science’s Blind Spot, Cornelius G. Hunter

Signature in the Cell, Stephen C. Meyer.

Who was Adam? Fazale Rana (Old Earth Creationist)

Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, Marvin L. Lubenow, (Young Earth Creationist)

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? C. John Collins

Darwin’s Dilemma (DVD), Illustra Media

Privileged Planet (book and DVD), Illustra Media


John A. Bloom is a professor of physics and academic director of the M.A. in science and religion program at Biola University. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from Cornell University and a Ph.D. in Ancient Near Eastern studies from the Annenberg Research Institute.

Share

Subscribe to Comments

Comments

  • Rob Walker October 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM

    How do you unlike something

  • Mark Wendland October 4, 2011 at 3:26 PM

    There are several points that need to be addressed in this article.

    1) Biological evolution and the origin of life itself are two entirely different fields of study. To make it sound as though a person who accepts evolution as true must also have a fully natural explanation for the existence of any life at all is an unacceptable conflation.
    2) Arguing that a given theological interpretation (for example, the Fall as a spacetime event and not a metaphor for our own personal "falleness") gets to decide the weight we give to scientific evidence is a flawed methodology that, if followed by scientists consistently, would kill progress in science.
    3) The microevolution-macroevolution distinction as a way of avoiding (by accepting the former but not the latter) the full impact of converging evidence from paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and genetics is not a option any more. When I was a Creationist, this is what I held onto until I ran smack into modern genetic evidence. The mechanics of evolution are becoming available to us daily as more and more animals have their DNA sequenced. In addition, if you accept microevolution, which almost everyone does, where do you draw the line. We have abundant evidence that certain animals are related to others but can no longer procreate, so where do you draw the line and say that this doesn't or can't happen?
    4) Articles like this promote the implication that scientists are divided on the basic facts of evolution. The article calls it "a failing vision in science". Try to find any practicing scientist with biological training (not physics) or training in paleontology that doesn't accept evolution. It's real hard to do. The truth is that scientists who work in the field overwhelmingly accept evolution as the basic framework of biology. Where does this "failing vision" stuff come from? Certainly not from the scientific community as a whole.
    5) If you don't like evolution as an explanation of all the evidence (look at the fusion of chromosomes from chimp to human for example as spotlighted in the Dover trial) then what would you put in its place? Did God really directly create all these different creatures directly? What scientific predictions does this viewpoint offer that can be tested? A major problem for the Creationist side is that it is a negative theory. It doesn't predict anything that has been shown to be true. The last time it tried was Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument which failed miserably. You have to offer a real, scientifically testable alternative, not just point out potential weaknesses in certain interpretive details.

    [Continued]

  • Mark Wendland October 4, 2011 at 3:27 PM

    6) The Junk DNA example is an example of attacking an interpretive detail. The fact that there are "fossilized" remnants of earlier ancestors in all sorts of animals is an indisputable fact. Whether or not they are completely useless at a certain point does not negate the larger fact. Again, (point 5 above) what do you propose as an alternative explanation for how some animals have only pieces of genes that we see the whole set of working in related animals, while also noticing the reason for the limited or non-functionality can easily be aligned with changes in the environment? The only logically consistent (and I would say circular) proposal is that God created them with those fossil genes in place at the time of their special creation.
    7) Attacks on BioLogos are just as evident as attacks on Creationists. Drop the "attack", "liberal" language and start reasoning. BioLogos does not believe that Creationists have "solid, scientific evidence" on their side. From all I can see, the website is trying to educate. Please show examples of these attacks. They speak highly about our God, our Lord, and what they believe are his ways. They also give some options for Christians wrestling with the implications of evolution that range from ones Biola would consider liberal, to more conservative options (including a historical Adam).
    8) Please state the biochemical evidence for (special) Creationism or at least give us a footnote to follow up. Who is making this claim? The only references are to more denial media.
    9) As far as God's attributes being detectable, how about the idea that his limitless creativity has equipped the life on this planet with a mechanism to survive and adapt and not perish completely (in many cases)? Paley's God can get a bit too tame and cozy. Stop looking for his attributes to only be manifest in the ways you want them to be.

  • Nick Matzke October 4, 2011 at 9:19 PM

    Ugh. There are a lot of problems with this essay. Even a committed young-earth creationist like Todd Wood can't agree with some of those statements:

    http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36954

    http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/rtb-and-chimp-genome-part-5.html

    (The "only 75% similar to chimp" stuff is just mistaken, for instance.)

    And, junk DNA is misinterpreted by Bloom. The main evidence that a lot of DNA is junk is that the differences in genome size are mostly due to different amounts of parasitic repetitive elements, and essentially identical species can have 5 or 10 times more DNA than other species.

    http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/04/onion-test/

    This basic fact is never addressed by creationists.

  • bornagain77 October 5, 2011 at 2:32 AM

    As to the claim of Junk DNA:

    Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected - April 2010
    Excerpt: Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said,,,, Network theory is now a new paradigm that has replaced the one-way linear diagram of gene to RNA to protein. That used to be called the “Central Dogma” of genetics. Now, everything is seen to be dynamic, with promoters and blockers and interactomes, feedback loops, feed-forward processes, and “bafflingly complex signal-transduction pathways.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201004.htm#20100405a

    Amazingly, many leading evolutionists (Ayala in 2010; Francis Collins in 2010) still insist that most of the genome, which does not directly code for proteins, is useless 'Junk DNA'.

    Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html

    This irrational stance by them has severely hindered scientific progress:

    On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. - Richard Sternberg
    Excerpt: It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679

    As well it is now known that many of the hereditary diseases that afflict humans arise from the large 'Junk DNA' regions:

    International HoloGenomics Society - "Junk DNA Diseases"
    Excerpt: A primary goal of IHGS is to elevate awareness of the fact that "some, if not all" hereditary diseases do not stop at the boundaries of "genes"
    http://www.junkdna.com/junkdna_diseases.html
    Excerpt: "elaborated in more detail in my “Obituary of Junk DNA “
    http://www.junkdna.com/#obituary_of_junk_dna”
    uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)."
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-discovery-institute-needs-to-be-destroyed/#comment-357177

    This following site tells of a fairly embarrassing exchange for three Darwinian professors who insisted Intron sequences in DNA were junk yet were contradicted by the evidence:

    Introns - The Fact-Free “Science” of Matheson, Hunt and Moran: Ridicule Instead of Reason, Authority Instead of Evidence - Jonathan Wells - June 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/the_factfree_science_of_mathes035521.html

  • MichiganLiberal October 5, 2011 at 4:38 AM

    I actually agree with the statement in Bloom's title, "Theistic Evolution Isn’t Fit for Survival," but for very different reasons from his.

    My problem isn't with the "evolution" part of it but the "theistic" part. Evolutionary theory is based on careful observation of what demonstrably exists in nature. Theism is based on faith and Scripture. The only thing they seem to share in common is that both are mental constructs devised by humans to explain what is or is not true about themselves and the world.

    Creationists often cite the mutability of evolutionary theory as a weakness, as contrasted with the immutability of Scripture. Nothing more clearly demonstrates their misunderstanding of science. A scientific theory is SUPPOSED to change to conform itself to emerging evidence. That is in fact science's greatest strength and not in any way a weakness.

    Scripture lacks the flexibility to change when new and better evidence emerges, and that is its greatest weakness. That inflexibility is supposed to reflect the constancy of God and God's truth, but what it actually reflects is the inflexibility of some people's thinking about Life, the Universe, and Everything.

  • Chris October 5, 2011 at 5:36 AM

    This is 100% nonsense. Whoever wrote this doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of evolution and should stick to Christian mythology where they belong.

  • Chris October 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM

    Look, explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe without evolution, or find a rabbit fossil in Cambrian rock and you win. Do either. Until then, you just look like a child with it's hands over its ears repeating the same old tired baloney that has been debunked time and time again. Do you know how many people choke to death a year because your so-called "Intelligent Designer" decided to have food and air go down the same hole? Or that elephants die, not of old age, but because they run out of teeth and cant eat anymore? It's ridiculous and preposterous to think life was designed by an intelligent being. The examples of "poor design" are legion. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity or the existence of atoms. To deny it in 2011 is to exile yourself to a life of ridicule and hilarity.

  • edgar allan hodgson October 5, 2011 at 7:26 AM

    the author should just stick the head in a hole and pretend that nothing exist,i dont understand why some humans just disregard all the facts about evolution in favor of biblical dogma just a few thousand years old,"humans and chimps share a mere 75% dna", please,give me a break,this article is nonsense.

  • MCT October 5, 2011 at 9:22 AM

    Irreducible complexity has not "failed miserably." In fact, the case for it has become stronger and broader. Claims to the contrary are based on a misunderstanding of the very concept of irreducible complexity. Those making such a claim need to read Angus Menuge's fantastic defense, Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science. Even Michael Ruse (an evolutionist who wrote the Foreword) admits he has no adequate rebuttal for Menuge.

    Also:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

    You certainly do not have to look very hard to find biologists, biochemists, etc. who doubt the current paradigm. Douglas Axe immediately comes to mind. The Dissent from Darwin list contains hundreds:

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

    Thanks for this article, Dr. Bloom!

  • Nick Matzke October 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM

    Re: The DI list -- how many are named Steve?
    http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

    Re: Junk DNA -- quotes from journalists or people who don't specialize on the issue aren't worth much, when they clearly don't know about and don't deal with the basic fact of massive variation in genome size. Some vertebrates have 10 times less DNA than humans, some have 10+ times more. Some ferns have 80 times more. Onions have 5+ times more DNA than humans, and some onions have 5 times more DNA than other onions. I linked to the Onion Test, by T. Ryan Gregory, the world's leading expert on genome size variation.

  • MiaNous October 6, 2011 at 10:43 AM

    With all things you have to have the basic building blocks which god certainly made and pretty much acknowledged that we all have the primary building blocks. God knew we humans would need things in our lifetime when the time was right, like oil, gas, coal, uranium,etc... The earth had to be made to accompany these things for us and yes, it took time, in our time anyway-not gods,
    So, now in our life time, we use all these things that are available for us and more as they are discovered. If I believed science then trees should have ancestral dna to my ancesters but they dont. So how can life come from one cell and not have the dna showing in all life ? It didnt, gods plan was perfect and timely. Trees and algae are not kin to me, neither are apes. god used the building blocks to make each living thing and yes some are very close to us as he built us from the blocks that were already made. Not one Darwinism can explain why the record shows we have neanderthals and modern humans together ? Did god make us while other hominids were present ? I would rather god tell me than evolutionist ? These are the mysteries that the bible doesnt explain, but does it matter ? We know we are the newer people of god originated from the new Adam and EVE, yes god made man in his image as a artist finally gets his masterpiece.

  • zrat October 6, 2011 at 1:12 PM

    god doesnt exist, you superstitious fools. science has gotten us everything we have today (technology, medicine, world trade, advanced transportation, etc) and religion has gotten us nothing. there is no supernatural miracle on record for anything that has helped humanity. i understand that despite these facts, the majority of these morons will continue to believe in an ancient fairy tale based entirely in FAITH. its called blind faith for a reason dummies

  • Michael Gardner October 6, 2011 at 3:31 PM

    I can't believe facebook would think I would want to read this absolute moronic crap. Facebook, you fail.

  • J Timothy Dotson October 6, 2011 at 7:58 PM

    Evolution is a fact. Take a look at all the dog breeds around you. Human assisted evolution...horse breeds, in fact - all breeds of domesticated animals.

    No god created those changes. Humans did that.

    There may have been a cosmic moment of creation. Science talks of a beginning...big bang or whatever.

    Personally, I find few conflicts between science, metaphysics, and creation. A deity could have created all of them. The problem I have is anthropomorphization. Humans love to do that, in all their disciplines. We can't even conceive of an alien race without doing that...

    We need to stop...just pursue the truth. In science, in metaphysics, in creation - in everything. Just because we want a thing to be what we want it to be, does not mean it will be.

  • Alex Vogel October 6, 2011 at 9:39 PM

    First, the "chimpanzee" evidence you provided is inaccurate. One of the most compelling evidences confirming the fact primates and humans shared a common ancestor is Cytochrome C protein analyses. Cytochrome C is a ubiquitous protein found in ALL living organisms, from modern mammals right down to yeast and sponges. It is responsible for oxidative phosphorylation, i.e, turning oxygen we breathe into energy. Now, two different organisms should NOT have similar Cytochrome C sequences unless they are genealogically related, since there are no less than 2.3 X 10 to the 93rd power possible functional Cytochrome C sequences. For perspective, the number 10 to the 93rd power is about 1 BILLION times larger than the amount of ALL atoms in the visible universe. But guess what - Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. ( 105 Amino Acids- MGDVEKGKKI FIMKCSQCHT VEKGGKHKTG PNLFGRK TGQAPGYSYT AANKNKGIIW GEDTLMEYLE NPKKYIPGTK MIFVGIKKKE ERADLIAYLK KATNE). This information is easily accessible and available on databases worldwide online. In the absence of a hereditary mechanism, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10 to the -93rd power (1 out of 10 to the 93rd power). The similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration (PROOF) of common descent (evolution). Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by about 10 amino acids from all other mammals. Now if it were only Cytochrome C studies alone that’d be reason to suspect “coincidence”- BUT - Like protein sequence similarity, the DNA sequence similarity of two ubiquitous genes also implies common ancestry (as demonstrated in courts, medical fields, forensics, etc) . As mentioned before, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only one base (a 0.3% difference), even though there are 10 to 49th power different sequences that could code for this protein. Even more, there are many, many examples of shared pseudogenes (genes once functional in the distant past-another prime example of evolution) between primates and humans. One example is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact same chromosomal location with the same genetic mutations that render it nonfunctional. Another example is the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene. Humans have two copies of the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, a functional one and a nonfunctional pseudogene. Chimps and humans both share the same eight bp deletion in this pseudogene that renders it nonfunctional. Chimps and humans have similar skeletal structures, have the same amount of bones and teeth, all in the same relative locations. Despite all the objections based on creationist pseudo-science, we’re basically an upgraded primate on a modified chimpanzee-chassis.

  • Elder Biggs October 7, 2011 at 5:43 AM

    Well must say, after thirty years of study, after thirty years of research, after thirty years this is my Synopsis:
    First, I like Charles Darwin because he was consistent and honest within his documentation.
    Second, at the beginning of his studies at the Pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian Explosion Darwin Stated, "Noting the abundance of fossils, numerous transitional must be found to prove my theory"
    Third, Darwin also quoted sometime later in one of his books, 'Charles Darwin, My Life and letters Volume 1, Page 210,
    "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory"

    Over 140 years later E-volutionist remain within their faith given the lack of (PFE), Proof, Facts, and Evidence, to complete Darwin's Ideology one need not preceded toward any other ideologue because all else is futile.
    This bring us to my Book, 'E-volution is a fraud; it's nothing more than a Religion'.
    The Darwinnites are following the ideals of something that they can't see, feel, touch, nor prove, this is faith!

    E-volution is their religion and Charles Darwin is their Guru!

    IS there a need to be more fluent?

    My personal statement and thought:

    Jesus Christ of Nazareth IS LORD to the glory to God the Father for us through the power of HIS Holy Spirit! Amen and Alleluia! Shalom!

    Always with the Love of Jesus,
    Elder JBiggs

  • Mark Wendland October 9, 2011 at 4:00 AM

    @MCT---Thanks for the response. I haven't read the book by Angus Menuge, so I can't comment. From summaries it appears to be a philosophical critique of materialism rather than a science book, although there is material that attempts to defend Behe. I note that the author is a professor of philosophy/apologetics at a conservative Christian school (Concordia). I would likely agree with some of his criticisms of reductionistic materialism. Perhaps this is what Ruse couldn't refute?

    Which brings me to my point about support for Creationism/ID again. Nearly everyone involved in promoting it has some sort of tie to the Discovery Institute, Reasons to Believe, the Creation Research Council, or IDEA. Look at your example, Douglas Axe. He's mentioned in the Wedge document and was a part of the secretive Biologic Institute. This is clearly a theological movement and not a scientific one.

    Gallup statistics on support for evolution show a few hundred (most of them in the U.S. incidentally) out of around 480,000 scientist disagree with evolution. That would make them less than 1%. Perhaps you have some other statistics? Maybe some from the Discovery Institute?

    Perhaps, since you have been so kind as to reply, you could explain why, if Intelligent Design (understood as special creation, not that the universe was created by God) is a scientifically viable concept (based on "stronger and broader" evidence than ever before) and on the verge of overturning Darwin's basic concepts, does it not produce original research? My position is that the movement is fueled by apologists and attorneys.

  • Elder Biggs October 10, 2011 at 4:54 AM

    Mark Hi,
    I must agree with you on the point of the type of people that feel the need to defend the Word against E-volution. (No L behind the E, so E-volution like the English says).
    However, one doesn't need an Science degree in order to understand simple logic, or as I say also within my book, 'Logical Common Sense'
    Three examples:
    One, All groups believe (And I use the word believe in the first definition here for there is no other adherence) in the Big Bang Theory.
    There is one thing about this that is commonalty for all, The Big Bang didn't start here and end there. In fact man can't calculate past this Big Bang and it’s indefensible.
    Logical Common Sense.
    This shoot's a big hole within E-volution's total Ideology, that being there is causation for everything. There isn't one that man can formulate before the Big Bang. Very simple stuff.
    The problem here is man within his knowledge loves to think that he can conceive, perceive, and receive any and every thing! Sorry not true. This is basic secular humanistic thinking, and true to form it is limited.
    Two: Let's say E-volution did happen? From the Big Bang emerged all of the planets, our planet, this Motion lava rock at about three thousand degrees. After some time it cooled as space cooled, so from a fire rock to now a cold rock in space.
    Logical Common Sense Question:
    Can anyone explain how water appeared on the surface of the earth without using adjectives? Because there is no PFE, (Proof, Facts, or Evidence) yet even better, nor is there a working model that can be applied.
    To finish this if there was an Ideology for this it remains a specific and direct command for this planetoid alone and that means intelligence planed this around all of the other bodies within the universe as we can't conceive it. This also concludes that E-volution is within doubt by this admission.
    Third: There is no complete theory on RNA, (Ribonucleic acid).
    Logical Common Sense Question:
    How did this chemical become a human?
    There is a one in 10 to the 75th power chance of this Amino acid formulating to become one cell of a bug anatomy in of it's self, by it's self.
    Logical Common Sense Answer: If there is no working model for the foundation of the house? All else is religious enthusiasm.
    So Synopsis: It is easy to understand why there are so many defense Attorneys and Apologist parading within this venue. Against such Logical common sense challenges one has to respond.
    Post Script: These small topics above are the front dust cover on the book of this subject discussion.

  • Richard Coulbeck October 10, 2011 at 3:55 PM

    @Mark. Readers should be reminded of two things. 1 - Any scientific hypothesis or argument such as Irreducible Complexity is not invalidated simply by stating it, and this is still true no matter how many people do nothing more than state that. You must show how. 2 - The 'background' of anyone who submits an argument is completely and utterly irrelevant to the scientific validity of the argument presented, and so feeling the need to note such details is a shallow distraction at very least. The argument for Irreducible Complexity remains until actually proven otherwise. As to the query about original research, the sites and organisations you quote show a great deal of original research. All research must however be funded and there is unfortunately a huge resistance in most mainstream academic institutions to funding research, because of an (inappropriate) link between the research itself (straight forward scientific qn - material cause or designer?) and the philisophical implications of any design conclusions.

  • RIchard Coulbeck October 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

    @Alex: I am not convinced by your argument that protein similarity is 'compelling proof' of common descent, unless you have already pre-supposed a non-designer world view, in which case yes it is more compelling, because you then have no other possible way to even begin to approach the 'problem' of explaining lifes incredible complexity. Once that presupposition is removed however, and by the way - to do that is actually the more honest way to investigate the issue (leaving all possible options open for investigation), then this is just as satisfactorily explained by a simple consistency used by the designer. There is no longer any reason to hold to a 'rule' that significantly different Cyt' C protein sequences MUST occur across species.

    As for using the common ancestry card supported by medical, courts, forensics etc, that falls into the same category. Sure, that works just fine because we are looking at discrete small differences across a gene pool of the same species. There is nothing but the same presupposition that expands the scope of that across species boundaries. Sorry, but gene or protein similarities/differences does not actually provide compelling proof or rebuttal (for either view). The article above is not using the 75% data to prove design btw, he is simply refuting the data used incorrectly by evolutionists to 'prove' evolution.

    The real question is where did that extraordinary level of 'information' come from in the first place, that is required before an evolutionary process could even begin? That is a perfectly valid and scientific question.

  • Mark Wendland October 11, 2011 at 8:27 PM

    @Biggs--please see my point number one from my original response on Oct. 4th about the difference between origin of life and the evolution of life. I am not Richard Dawkins. You may also be interested to know that there are theorists of various kinds (including theologians) who posit an eternally existing universe. I don't think that it is true, but not "all" accept the Big Bang. Again, not that it matters.
    @Richard--of course any idea isn't disproved simply by stating it. But why would you think I am claiming that? My own journey from a position sympathetic to yours to one that began questioning the Creationist paradigm simply started with the realization that there were so few supporters of that position remaining in the scientific community. That is what got me looking at the evidence from anew. The fact that the people who work on a daily basis with the evidence overwhelmingly reject Creationism ought to make a thinking person question things. Anyhow, more to the point, I was responding, in particular, to the myth that evolution is a "failing vision" (as the article we are discussing claims). That it is, by implication, losing support among scientists. That, at least, is not true and it certainly isn't a "shallow distraction" to say so, because, as I have lived and studied among conservative Christians most of my life, I understand that it really is more at the heart of the mythology than some other things. The idea that there is a debate, that it is an open scientific question (from the point of view of practicing scientists). Now, having said that, you can continue believing what you do and claim that all those individuals are blinded, involved in 'groupthink' or a conspiracy, are deceived by the Devil,...what have you. That is your choice.

    Two points:
    1. The Dover trial (2005) would have been the perfect venue to bring out all that original research and establish ID as a scientific theory and not a theologically motivated agenda. This is the primary reason why the trial was decided the way it was. ID could not prove that it was a science. The secondary reason is that at least one person on the ID side was willing to lie (or should I say "mis-speak") for Jesus on more than one occasion.
    2. You and Biggs have (all interpretations aside) established my point that the resistance to evolution in the U.S. is coming from attorneys and Christian apologists in a handful of agencies and not by any significant number of practicing scientists. Biggs tried to be clever about it ("agreeing with his enemy") and you just said that ID is a negative theory ("actually proven otherwise") that isn't really supported by scientists but that it doesn't really matter ("background is irrelevant"). Again, it should make any reasonable person suspicious. Amen and Alleluia! (translation: God is on my side, not yours).

  • Elder Biggs October 12, 2011 at 4:10 AM

    @Mark okay I read your Ideology, but flawed?
    First, when I say that all groups accept the Big Bang, I mean that the Big Bang is also the result of God saying, "Let there be Light!” From the Christian perspective given the fact that science, nor man being able to calculate, formulate, or speculation past, in front of, nor before that point of existence.
    Second, your point is moot on Micro-e-volution, all groups do accept this, for the reasons it eliminates asexual reproduction and without asexual procreation, there is no E-volution. Remember I said that there is a one in 10 to the 75th Power chance that ONE amino acid protein could lined up perfectly in order to create one cell within a bug's anatomy. Therefore, there is no room for reproduction here. Therefore, micro-e-volution is ideology and not fact.
    Third,
    The problem here is man just can't accept that the 100 trillion cells living within every human, and the over 400 billion stars and countless trillion planetoid bodies within existence was created and is controlled by Just One Super, Superior, all knowing, loving, giving, forgiving, and will judge all for one way of life or the other one day exist.
    Four, there can be no middle ground; either there IS a God that created it all or, we E-volved?
    Because this Super-Being is the existence, Presence tense, or He is not.

  • Jacob Wolff October 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM

    I was wondering about the (to me) contradictory ideas of entropy and evolution. Evolution says we should gain information, right? And entropy says order to disorder, right? So i was wondering how that works. It seems weird that an organism could exceed its DNA parameters because its like a computer code but more complex (4 different choices instead of 2) and computers don't evolve (unless we make them better). Could one of you experts help me with this conundrum.

  • Elder Biggs October 13, 2011 at 10:32 PM

    @Jacob Hay, I think that you have answered your own question? With out help how could an organism exceed its DNA parameters? Divine intervention, or man's insertion? Nothing happens in of its self, by it self, for a none reason or an causation that can't be explained given time and space, logic, reason, and Spiritual Help?

  • Elder Biggs October 15, 2011 at 5:14 AM

    Lastly, to close these conversations as I assume that all have long surpassed this point within time.
    I find it surprising that men and women of intelligence only eat what they like and retard with themselves to eat their vegetables.
    Example,
    Mrs. Barbara Bush the mother of George W. Bush, wife to Herbert Walker Bush needed a heart valve replacement some time ago with the past two years.
    Of course, the list for hearts and valves is long and waiting. Mrs. Bush being of some means had other choices given the fact that she couldn’t just jump in front of the people in need also of a heart valves replacement that are not of the same means and ways as the Bush’s are within comparison, at any rate, What would the Bush’s do in order to resolve the de lima?
    Well heart valves replacements from animals have had success over the years even growing new organs from cell is also on the rise as good replacements.
    What did the Bush’s do? They decided to go with the animal heart valve replacement.
    So, Logical Common Sense Question:
    What Animal heart valve is used as a replacement for Mrs. Barbara Bush?
    A, Chimpanzee?
    B, Gorilla?
    C, Orangutan?
    D, Pig?

    Answer: PIG
    Logical Common Sense Answer:
    The PIG heart valve match better and is more compatible to humans than ALL of the Ape family!
    Another hole in E-volution on the human and ape DNA Compatibility ideology!
    The ape family should match better but do not.
    So why are the E-volutionist not talking about this well know operation?
    Because in light of the over whelming evidence to disprove E-volution the Darwinnites remain resolute or should I say dissolute?
    E-volutionist are again to be found lacking, PFE= PROOF, FACTS, AND EVIDENCE to support their religion.
    Good day to all

  • Elder Biggs October 17, 2011 at 5:00 AM

    @MARK Sorry your augment about augmentation is moot. Some things are true and simple whether you believe them or not. The earth was always round, water was always wet, the ski blue. Pilgrims did not land on Plymouth Rock, Discovered American! They docked in someone else's harbor front yard! The Milky Way galaxy was there by some other name, Orion’s belt also before an Irish Man name it what we call it on to day.
    In addition, if you think that God is on your side. Go back and read
    Exodus 20:5
    New King James Version (NKJV)
    You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
    Faith is believing within something without having all of the answers and E-volution qualifies as a religion, Something that takes faith, hope, expectation of something to come or facts not present in evidence'. We live with a courtroom allegory so law applies to everything; Laws that adhere to our discussion as well.
    The Father, Creator, will share His glory with no one, especially not with a finite philosophy from some of HIS Creations. When He says something, it has been done! There is no chance of it going a rye or the strongest will survive, nor the survival of the fists. Adjectives are a part of man's limited vernacular, not so for the God of Life. He said, "Let there be light!" And Bang! There was light. Life sprang in to action as HE commanded it. Ever wondered why Jesus said, "Lazareth Come Forth?”
    Because if He did not name specific such a large amount of people would have awakened!
    God Commands and HIS Creation respond!
    I'M on GOD's side!
    Nice try Mark but an F grade on this paper

  • Elder JBiggs December 22, 2012 at 7:37 AM

    Ah did I beat up on someone's ideological dreams? Sorry fellows truth is like math, THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE RIGHT ANSWER.

  • Lynn Higgins February 14, 2013 at 7:19 AM

    I don't believe science and the bible are mutually exclusive:

    www.seeinggodanew.com

    The answers are there in black and white.

  • Elder JBiggs May 21, 2013 at 9:48 PM

    Of course not; because E-volution is not Science, E-volution; is an ideology. about
    science .

  • Elder JBiggs May 24, 2013 at 5:34 AM

    @Alex Hi, I understand your. point however,the order of the E-voluttion progression ;is unearthed at no digging site on the planet. The ameba to man; nor tens of thousands of enormous transitional;Charles Darwin Stated that he would need(In order to complete his theory ) and never found. Where withIn .I concluded within earlier statements above.

  • ElderJBiggs August 5, 2013 at 4:14 AM

    There is no balance between Science and nature and the Bible. When will man learn;that man's ability to comprehend God is moot;since man cannot perceive God. Even within the word Theology,'God study' or the study or of God; man is still grasping. at micros of God's reasoning. If this were not true; man would have put God the Creator; within a box long ago. However, man cannot;he doesnot have the ability to see God without the help of the Saviour Jesus Christ.We remain paused within the Theology of GodMan Jesus Christ? How,when,why,and why now.

  • Matt Fisher August 18, 2013 at 3:23 AM

    Mr. Biggs,

    Do you really think that the reason pigs' hearts are used for transplantats is that they are closer, genetically, to us than the great apes? Do you really want to stake out that territory?

    Regarding information, the term does not mean the same thing as the common usage. Information, genetically speaking, refers to information theory, as in Shannon theory (and some others.) Consider the following 8 bit word:

    11111111

    Let's randomly mutate one bit:

    11110111

    As it turns out the second word contains more information than the first. A string of bits would contain the maximum amount of data that would fit into its size if it were completely, truly random.

    Another way to look at it is to ask how easy it would be to losslessly compress each word. Clearly the first word would be much easier to reduce in size. But the second word is entropically greater. As it turns out, entropy itself is responsible for the increase in information. Evolution is nothing if not a process that, for a short time at least, cheats entropy.

    Want to see a sudden drop in information. Eat some cyanide and sit at room temperature for 2 weeks.

    The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution, even if it does suit your agenda. Stop saying it does. That's just dishonest.

    Water is abundant throughout the universe and appears to have ended up here during the late heavy bombardment via comets and other debris that brought it here. How's that for a working model?

    "There is a one in 10 to the 75th power chance of this Amino acid formulating to become one cell of a bug anatomy in of it's self, by it's self."

    This is nonsense. Neither you nor anyone else can possibly calculate such odds. However the number of different orders a deck of cards can be arranged in is 52!, or 8.0658*10^67. The odds of you ending up with any one particular card order is one in 8.0658*10^67. But people still end up with some configuration, don't they?

    Odds don't work the way you think they do, apparently.

  • ElderJay Biggs December 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

    I Apologize for not being attentive to this site I had moved on. However, Matt Fisher, you are wrong, It does not matter on language or grammar only facts. All of my facts are from Scientist that were E-volutionist; And now have seen the light; and that is even Charles Darwin Proves that E-volition is not Possible, and I Quote:Darwin Stated, On the Origin of Species, (1859) "Noting the abundance of fossils, numerous transitional must be found to prove my theory", Darwin also quoted sometime later in one of his books, 'Charles Darwin, My Life and letters Volume 1, Page 210, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory" .

    So Mr Fisher argue with Darwin the foremost authority on E-volution!

    Argue with the Doctors that replace Mrs Bush's Heart Value.

    They are my PROOF FACTS AND EVDENCE I am only reporting their finding. This, I will add are of public record!

    And Yes facts are facts THE PIG MATCHED BETTER AND WAS REJECTED LESS THAN ANY APE FAMILY COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT.
    Facts Mr Fisher, Facts! I would not be here talking if I didn't have facts not odds Mr Fisher! And If Charles Darwin didn't clarify this truth, no one else can compare. Because no ones work comes close to Charles Darwin's work to date over 140 years ago. I love Charles Darwin, because at lease he was a honest man and displayed the true facts. E-volution IS NOT scientifically POSSIBLE.

    Now as I close this session, I invite you to think about the facts. We all will past through this life one day. Here are some more facts for you. Many People have died and come back. Tens of thousands from all over the world; Not one has ever come back and talked about E-volution. Most have talked about seeing light, Angles, God and Jesus. Given this, none have come back talking about how it was to Evolve. we all must one day stand and meet out Maker one day. Would you like it better that when you see Him He said to you, 'Come on in son!' or would you prefer, Sorry I never knew you, leave My presence! You have the opportunity to Ask God in to your heart today! Jesus wants to come close to you and He wants you to know Him closer than your skin. All you have to do is ask and He will come right away and live with you. See E-volution didn't happen science says that it's not possible. So what is left? God! He loves you and is waiting to hear from you, to reveal why He made you and what you have to do for Him. Give God a Chance, He is yours, and you are His. Jesus wants you to know that you are His and what a relationship with Him is like. It is no accident that you are here, God is talking to you answer Him, He will re-answer. Give God a try you will not be sorry.

    See You,
    Always with the Love of Jesus,
    JBiggs

  • D. Andrew White December 30, 2013 at 2:27 PM

    I do notice that the opponents of theistic evolution in this blog keep rehashing long-ago debunked Creationist arguments & misunderstandings. For example the 'Cambrian Explosion' rubbish. It would seem that the balance of evidence does point to some sort of evolution and even common ancestry have much in their favour. It is important not to make Christianity look bad by rehashing vacant arguments. It simply makes the 'apologist' look bigheaded.

    Speaking of pigs - Pigs are farther genetically from humans than are apes. It is just that there are more pigs and more varieties of pigs. Hence scientists can breed pigs with lower immune-incompatibility and also they have more genetic variation to work with. In fact chimpanzees and bonobos have overlapping blood types with humans. I.e. check your facts.

  • Elder JBiggs January 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

    Mr D. Andrew White,

    Charles Darwin, the past and present expert on E-volution Gained his Ph.D. from the expedition and exposion the Pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian Explosion. No work to date overrides Darwin's finds. He is still the yard stick by whom all E-volution stands. Mr 'Charles Darwin, Synapsed, My Life and letters Volume 1, Page 210, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory" .
    He proved that E-volution is scientifically impossible. His work can not be challenged.
    Thank you.

    SECOND: NO PLACE,OR WHERE ON PLANET EARTH, WILL YOU FINE THE TABLE AS E-VOLUTIONIST PRESENTS IT; FROM EMEBA TO MAN.
    Third, it does not matter what or where or how the Swine is made available; if E-volution were true, the PIGS should not work better than any of the ape community.
    Fourth: The E-volutionists started this ideology, Christians are only answering by science.
    So when E-volutionists present their argument they are not bigheaded? However, when Christians do the same, they look Bigheaded! Sounds like a double standard to me.
    The Christian's arguments are not vacant, but viable. An Evangelical Apologist, like myself have my (PTE) Proof, Facts, and Evidence stacked before the theories start.
    So recheck your facts because you are within error sir.

  • Elder JBiggs January 2, 2014 at 4:25 PM

    Mr D. Andrew White,

    Charles Darwin, the past and present expert on E-volution Gained his Ph.D. from the expedition and exposure at the Pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian Explosion. No work to date overrides Darwin's finds. He is still the yard stick by whom all E-volution stands. Mr 'Charles Darwin, Synapsed, 'My Life and letters', Volume 1, Page 210, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory" .
    He proved that E-volution is scientifically impossible. His work can not be challenged.
    Thank you.

    SECOND: NO PLACE,OR WHERE ON PLANET EARTH, WILL YOU FINE THE TABLE AS E-VOLUTIONIST PRESENTS IT; FROM EMEBA TO MAN.
    Third, it does not matter what or where or how the Swine is made available; if E-volution were true, the PIGS should not work better than any of the ape community.
    Fourth: The E-volutionists started this ideology, Christians are only answering by science.
    So when E-volutionists present their argument they are not bigheaded? However, when Christians do the same, they look Bigheaded! Sounds like a double standard to me.
    The Christian's arguments are not vacant, but viable. An Evangelical Apologist, like myself have my (PTE) Proof, Facts, and Evidence stacked before the theories start.
    So recheck your facts because you are within error sir.

  • Elder JBiggs January 27, 2014 at 3:42 AM

    Lastly, To all There is no working model of Comets retaining Water to this planet. An working model means, that the same thing is repeated. Like Michael Jordan Winning The Champion ships, Three times. Then Playing lousy baseball for some time, and then coming back and winning three more Championships! Water from the Universe? Hahaha. This planet gets its water from heat rising from land and the oceans. Where did you learn Science? Yea, there is water in the Cosmos, but it DOES NOT COME TO THIS THE PLANET EARTH CONTINUOS. AND there is NO Proof, Facts, nor evidence(PFE) to support this claim. No working model. The Magnetic rays and the atmosphere would melt, dissolve, and evaporate as they do on to day. They would crash as solid rock, with very little if any water vapor at all. This is te only working
    And as far as the numbers are concerned I got them from some of my EX-E-volutionist SCIENCE buddies.They have computers and slide rules. Works for them!
    About the Pigs hearts, it isn't what I want to use, Mr White These are facts PRESENT within Evidence. NOT mine, but SCIENCE EVIDENCE.
    Sorry, Mr White, E-volution didn't happen! Darwin proved it. Real science does NOT support it.
    Yours and others as yourself, time of lying and just MAKING up stories about the existence of Life is about up. And everyone knows it.

    Good Day to you Sir.

  • veganfonWarriorvuh June 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM

    This is also where I'm in agreement with the majority of cardiologists and the nutri

  • veganfonWarriorzpb June 7, 2014 at 10:36 PM

    This is also where I'm in agreement with the majority of cardiologists and the nutri

  • veganfonWarriorswt June 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM

    This is also where I'm in agreement with the majority of cardiologists and the nutri

Post a comment

Your email will not be published as part of your comment.

Issue Highlights

Back to Fall 2011 Home

Biola University
13800 Biola Ave. La Mirada, CA 90639
1-562-903-6000