But Is Evolution Science?

Review:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III
Middle District of Pennsylvania (Dec. 20, 2005)

 
    In 2005 Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down his ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It is regarded as the definitive court ruling on Intelligent Design.
    The case arose when the Dover Area School Board adopted a policy requiring teachers of 9^th grade biology to read to their students a brief disclaimer about the theory of evolution. The statement said that evolution was a theory and not a fact, that Intelligent Design is another explanation of the origin of life, and that a book was available in the school library if students wished to know more. The statement did not actually say that Intelligent Design was necessarily true or that evolution was false. Nevertheless, several irate parents sued the school district, alleging an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into a public school classroom. The judge reviewed the evidence and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
    [We should explain to our readers in the British Commonwealth that in the U.S. a "public school" is a school supported by tax dollars and controlled by the state. It is not an exclusive private school, as in England. Moreover, since the U.S. Constitution forbids an "establishment of religion," i.e., a state church, the content of public school education becomes a matter of controversy. How is it possible to provide an "education" that is secular, without becoming implicitly atheistic?]
    The judge reviewed the history of the Intelligent Design movement and concluded that "ID," as it is called for short, is essentially the same as creationism and is a form of religious belief. Since the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that creationism may not be taught in a public school classroom, Judge Jones ruled that neither may Intelligent Design.
    Judge Jones could have left the issue at that, but he did not. Instead, he wrote a 139 page opinion that explored all aspects of the issue, from the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to the inner politics of the Dover school board.
    According to Judge Jones, the "seminal question" in the case was whether or not Intelligent Design is science. But what exactly is "science"? The judge cited a definition from the National Academy of Science: "In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science" (Kitzmiller, p. 66). The judge noted that since the scientific revolution of the 16^th and 17^th Centuries science has limited itself to naturalistic explanations of phenomena. "Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. In deliberately omitting theological or 'ultimate' explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of 'meaning' and 'purpose' in the world" (p. 65). He then concluded, quite correctly we think, that Intelligent Design does not meet that definition of science.
    What Judge Jones failed to mention, however, is that most of the great scientists of the 16^th and 17^th Centuries believed that nature has a rational structure precisely because it came from the hand of an intelligent Being. Virtually none of them thought that nature was the result of a process of natural evolution. In other words, almost all of them believed in some form of what we would call today "Intelligent Design," or what was know then as "natural theology." While they adhered rigorously to the empirical method, they did not claim that it could tell them the ultimate origin of things. As Sir Francis Bacon put it, "My first admonition (which was also my prayer) is that men confine the sense within the limits of duty in respect of things divine: for the sense is like the sun, which reveals the face of earth, but seals and shuts up the face of heaven" (The Great Instauration, preface).

Charles Darwin

    What Judge Jones also failed to notice is that Darwinism does not meet his definition of science, either. The plain fact of the matter is that evolution offers us an "ultimate explanation," but one that cannot be confirmed or tested by experiment. Moreover, Darwinism does in fact consider "issues of 'meaning' and 'purpose' in the world" – it is emphatic that there are none, at least none that inhere in nature. Why then is Darwinism so widely accepted among mainstream scientists? It is because it is philosophically coherent. In other words, Darwinism attempts to do the very thing that Judge Jones (and Francis Bacon) say that science should never do. And it is precisely here that evolution comes into conflict with religion.
    The common disability under which both theories labor is that an alleged prehistoric event cannot be subjected to direct observation and experiment. Neither theory is testable. Neither theory can be verified by means of the scientific method. And until a theory has been tested and validated through experiment it is still tentative: it may not be true at all.
    Why, then, is evolution considered "science"? It appears that Darwinists have suddenly change the definition of "science." Evolution is presumably science because it offers a completely naturalistic explanation for the origins of life's forms. Intelligent Design, by this reckoning, is obviously not science, because it leaves room for divine agency in nature. In other words, "science" is no longer just a method; it is a worldview.
    Because Christian theism is inherently religious, Judge Jones ruled that it has no place in the public school classroom. But does the First Amendment really require the public school system to indoctrinate our youth in a materialist philosophical system?

How Darwin and Dewey Destroyed Western Civilization

John Dewey in 1902

    "That the publication of the 'Origin of Species' marked an epoch in the development of the natural sciences is well known to the layman." Thus begins John Dewey's essay "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy," which was originally published in 1910 and more recently appeared in The Philosophy of John Dewey, edited by John J. McDermott (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1981). The essay is an intriguing attempt by Dewey to fathom the implications of Darwinism for Western culture generally.
    Interestingly Dewey downplayed the impact of Darwin's ideas on religion, and instead focused on Greek philosophy. He pointed out that for 2,000 years Western philosophy and science had revolved around the concept of "species" or "eidos," a fixed and immutable category that exists in nature. Observing that the individual specimens within a given species all grow and mature into the same archetypical form, the ancient Greeks concluded that each species must have its own specific purpose or aim, ("telos") to conform to the predetermined type. "The idea of eidos, species, a fixed form and final cause, was the central principle of knowledge as well as of nature. Upon it rested the logic of science. Change as change is mere flux and lapse; it insults intelligence. Genuinely to know is to grasp a permanent end that realizes itself through changes, holding them thereby within the metes and bounds of fixed truth. Completely to know is to relate all special forms to their one single end and good: pure contemplative intelligence" (op. cit., p. 34).
    This idea of a fixed species having a definite aim and purpose "accounted for the intelligibility of nature and the possibility of science," while at the same time it "gave sanction and worth to the moral and religious endeavors of man. Science was underpinned and morals authorized by one and the same principle, and their mutual agreement was eternally guaranteed" (p. 36).
    Dewey went on to say that "the Darwinian principle of natural selection cut straight under this philosophy" (p. 37). If evolution is the result of a purely natural process of selection, "there is no call for a prior intelligent causal force . . . Hostile critics charged Darwin with materialism and with making chance the cause of the universe" (Ibid.).

Asa Gray

    Dewey went on to describe how Asa Gray attempted to find a role for divine providence in evolution, but noted that Darwin flatly rejected the idea. The process was too random to see the hand of God in it. Thus Darwin's critics, in the main, were correct. Darwin was a materialist who made chance the cause of the universe.
    Dewey pointed out that Darwin's theory had the effect of changing the focus of philosophy. Whereas previously philosophy had been preoccupied with finding the unifying principle of reality, it now focused instead on solving the concrete problems of temporal existence. Dewey, the Pragmatist, saw this as a positive step forward. But it leaves certain disturbing questions unanswered. If the older philosophy "accounted for the intelligibility of nature and the possibility of science" and "gave sanction and worth to the moral and religious endeavors of man," what happens to science, morality and religion under the new way of thinking? Dewey didn't say. But if everything is evolving and there are no fixed categories in nature, how is it possible to make generalizations about anything in either science or morality? There is only the superficial appearance of stability and permanence. Are we not driven to sheer skepticism and nihilism?
    At the conclusion of his essay Dewey made an astonishing admission. "But in fact intellectual progress usually occurs through sheer abandonment of questions together with both of the alternatives they assume – an abandonment that results from their decreasing vitality and a change of urgent interest. We do not solve them; we get over them" (p. 41). He then went on to observe: "Doubtless the greatest dissolvent in contemporary thought of old questions, the greatest precipitant of new methods, now intentions, new problems, is the one affected by the scientific revolution that found its climax in the 'Origin of Species'"(Ibid.).
    But what were "the old questions"? Wasn't it a worldview, the values and ideals, the social and artistic norms, the hopes and aspirations of traditional Western culture? In short, what was "dissolved" was civilization as we knew it. 

You may also be interested in (click on the links):
How Science Committed Suicide 
The Case for Moral Absolutes 

Thanksgiving Meditation - 2012

     Thanksgiving is one of those traditional holidays that have lost much of their original meaning over time.  Thanksgiving was, of course, originally intended as an occasion upon which to express gratitude to God for the blessings of the preceding year.  It is loosely based on the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles.  Although most Americans have long since ceased to devote the day to the actual giving of thanks, that does not lessen the fact that we have much for which to be thankful.  A moment of reflection is in order.
     Psalm 145 is a hymn of praise that extols the providential care of God over His creation.  "The Lord is good to all," the psalm proclaims, "And His tender mercies are over all His works" (v. 9: NKJV).  This providential care is of two sorts.  First, there is God's provision for the physical sustenance of all living creatures: "The eyes of all look expectantly to You, / And You give them their food in due season. / You open Your hand / And satisfy the desire of every living thing" (vv. 15,16).  Secondly, there are God's answers to the prayers of the devout: "The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, / To all who call upon Him in truth. / He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; / He also will hear their cry and save them" (vv. 18,19).
     At this point the modern skeptic is sure to protest.  Nature works by natural means; thus there is no trace of divine providence in nature.  To which we reply that we do not deny natural cause and effect.  But who designed and created nature in the first place?  In creating an entire ecosystem God graciously provided for the sustenance of life.  But the evolutionist says, it is the species that is adapted to the environment, and not the environment to the species.  To which we reply that life would not have been possible at all if God had not first created a suitable environment.
     Indeed, one of the strongest arguments for Intelligent Design is the "fine tuning" of the universe.  In order for life to be possible on earth a number of critical factors have to be in place.  The planet has to be the right distance from the son, so that temperatures fall within a certain range.  There must be the presence of water.  The planet must have an atmosphere with just the right amount of oxygen. Gravity and electromagnetic force must all fall within a certain range.  And then there is the sheer complexity of life itself, with each organism made up of several different coordinated systems.  In order for evolution to be true, it would require a constant stream of near-miraculous advances from lesser to more complex forms of life, something that we don't witness in real life.
     It all points back to an infinitely wise and all-powerful Creator.  But it tells us something else about God as well.  Why would the Creator have gone to such lengths to create an entire ecosystem that is so intricate and elaborate?  The psalmist gives us the answer: "The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, / Slow to anger and great in mercy. / The Lord is good to all, / And His tender mercies are over all His works" (vv. 8,9).  In other words, God genuinely cares about the creatures He has made.  We do not inhabit an impersonal and amoral universe.  Granted, we experience injury and disease, drought and pestilence, poverty and oppression, wars and natural disasters, and finally death.  But evil is ultimately the result of our sin and depravity.  The fault lies with us, not with God.  God is the Creator and Sustainer, and every good in life that we enjoy comes ultimately from Him.
     On this Day of Thanksgiving let us remember to "praise God from Whom all blessings flow."

Junk DNA

    Recently a commentator on another blog (Choice in Dying – www.choiceindying.com) cited the example of the vitamin C pseudogene and challenged us to explain why "an intelligent designer would give us apes a perfectly good gene for making vitamin C, but then borked it at a single locus so it's inactive." This, of course, is one of the arguments in favor of evolution, the presence of "junk DNA", DNA that has no apparent function. Dr. Collins uses this evidence as well in his argument for theistic evolution.
    As we noted earlier in our review of Dr. Collins' book, The Language of God, the argument from junk DNA is similar to the older argument from vestigial organs. Presumably a wise and all-powerful Creator would not have created us with useless organs and DNA, whereas evolution seeming offers us a plausible explanation for their existence. Presumably they were functioning organs in some ancestral species. Arguments of this sort, however, overlook an important biblical detail: the Bible makes it clear that nature, as it exists now, is not the way it was originally created. "For the creation was subjected to futility . . ." (Rom. 8:20; NKJV). The fact of the fall, combined with possible climate change in conjunction with the flood, would mean that a certain amount of devolution has likely taken place. We were originally created to live, but now we die. Something obviously had to have happened to change our biochemistry. Hence we should not be surprised to find damaged chromosomes and apparently useless DNA in our cells. That is very far from proving macroevolution, which would require a progression from simpler to more complex forms of life, with all the genetic changes that would require, including the appearance of entirely new genetic material.
     In the Christian theistic worldview, nature is sort of like the ruins of an ancient Greek temple.  The evolutionist looks at the ruins and says, "This could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent being.  What architect would design a temple with the columns broken off and fallen down"?  But the Christian looks at exactly the same ruins and asks, "How did they get there in the first place?  There is obvious evidence of design"!  The obvious answer, of course, is that the architect did not design the temple with the columns broken off and fallen down.  Something else happened, after the temple was built, to bring it to its present ruined condition.  And that, of course, is exactly what the Bible says happened to nature.
    At the end of his book Dr. Collins resumes the story of his conversion and then concludes with moving appeals to both believers and scientists to end their internecine war.
    Dr. Collins is to be applauded for trying to advance science while preserving spiritual values. He comes across as a very reasonable person, as well as compassionate, a person who cares deeply about both science and his faith, anxious to do justice to all aspects of life. And yet, as Christians, we cannot help but feel that he conceded too much to Darwin and did not give sufficient weight to Scripture. His book is, nevertheless, a valuable contribution to the discussion and well worth reading.

Francis Collins and Theistic Evolution

Review:
    The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
    Francis S. Collins
    Free Press, 2006
    280 pp., pb.

 
    Dr. Francis S. Collins is one of the most distinguished scientists of our time. He is the head of the Human Genome Project as well as the director of the National Institutes of Health here in the U.S. He also happens to be a devout Christian, and it is this combination of circumstances that helped make his book a New York Times bestseller.
    Dr. Collins gives us a fascinating account of his own personal journey from atheism to Christ, and then discusses, in the middle of the narrative, the current controversy between science and religion. In Dr. Collins' view the two are quite compatible, and what he offers as a solution is his version of theistic evolution. Unfortunately, his proposed solution has some serious difficulties.
    The first of these difficulties is a theological problem. In discussing evolution Dr. Collins sounds very much like his secular counterparts such as Prof. Jerry A. Coyne. He believes that all living creatures, including human beings, share a common ancestry, with single cell organisms appearing some 550 million years ago and anatomically modern humans appearing 195,000 years ago. And yet Dr. Collins wants to say that humans are somehow different – that we have a "spiritual nature" that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom, a spiritual nature that defies evolutionary explanation.
    There are, however, several difficulties with this scenario. For one thing, in order to accommodate evolution Dr. Collins has to adopt an allegorical interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. He argues that a "day" is not necessarily a literal 24 hour day. But the problem here is that the word "day" is defined within the text itself: "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day:" (Gen. 1:5; NKJV). It is hard to see how the human author could have intended anything other than something close to a literal 24 hour day, and virtually no one else would have interpreted it any other way prior to the 19^th Century. (Dr. Collins does note that St. Augustine raised some questions about how literally to take the six "days" of creation).
    By the same token Dr. Collins denies that there was a literal Adam and Eve. Yet the whole theology of original sin rests on the assumption of a common ancestor whose actions affected the entire race. Thus it is hard to see how the biblical narrative can be reconciled with Darwinian evolution.
    It should be noted that Dr. Collins arrived at his Christian faith largely through the philosophical arguments of C.S. Lewis. Lewis argued for the philosophical necessity of a Moral Law, which, in turn, implies both the existence of God as its author and a special capacity in human beings to discern this Law. To support the idea of evolution Dr. Collins relies heavily on comparative genetics and the presence of "junk DNA," both updated versions of the older arguments drawn from comparative anatomy and vestigial organs. Thus Dr. Collins begins with a philosophical presupposition, combines that with the standard scientific understanding of evolution, and then makes his interpretation of Scripture conform to the resulting conclusion. The result is that his theology is biblically weak, and this is a problem for the Christian believer who takes seriously the authority of Scripture as a divine revelation.

 
Next: the philosophical problem.

Are Science and Religion Compatible? – II

    In our last blog post we noted that Dr. Jerry A. Coyne challenged the notion that science can accommodate religion. Science, he says, is grounded in a naturalistic worldview, and as such cannot be made compatible with religion.
    We would have to agree that, insofar as a naturalistic philosophy goes, "science," in the broader sense in which Dr. Coyne uses the term, most certainly is incompatible with Christianity. It is, in fact, an anti-Christian ideology. But is a naturalistic philosophy an essential component of science?
    Dr. Coyne certainly thinks so. He argues that a naturalistic philosophy is a logical corollary of a naturalistic methodology. The problem here is that he is expanding the scope and reach of the scientific method to include too much. According to him the scientific method does not just study nature, it seeks to understand and interpret the universe. It aims at nothing less than a comprehensive explanation of reality. But there is a problem here. Since the scientific method relies on the physical senses, it can discern only physical matter. And if it can discern only physical matter, any worldview built exclusively on the senses will inevitably be a materialistic one. But the problem here is not that the immaterial world does not exist, but rather that a naturalistic methodology cannot recognize it. It is a limitation inherent in the method. What we have here is philosophical overreach.
    There is something more to reality than just bare physical matter. Nature points to something beyond nature, to a first cause and an organizing principle, and divine revelation is necessary to elucidate the ultimate purpose and design of things.
    The scientific method works perfectly well within the framework of Christian Theism. Thousands of physicians, many of them devout Christians, use the scientific method every day to diagnose their patients. Their belief in God does not compel them to discard the germ theory of disease. Indeed, their faith has provided them with the motive to devote their talents and energy to science and the healing arts. Many hospitals were founded by religious organizations.
    Evolution, of course, remains a problem. However, if we set aside the naturalistic worldview, would evolution still be "proven"? Dr. Coyne would no doubt argue that the idea of a supernatural first cause is superstitious nonsense. But we reply that the idea that matter can bring itself into existence without the aid of an external force is even greater nonsense. Matter does not create itself.
    The stakes could hardly be higher. Dr. Coyne himself says "Evolution, of course, contravenes many common religious beliefs – not just those dealing with Biblical literalism, but those dealing with morality, meaning and human significance" (p. 2). But science and religion are completely compatible as long as science confines itself to the observable facts of nature. It is only when science tries to become the exclusive method of discerning truth and an all-encompassing worldview that it becomes "scientism," and comes into conflict with Christianity.

Are Science and Religion Compatible? – I

    We are indebted to a fellow blogger, Tildeb, whose blog is called "Questionable Motives" (questionablemotives.wordpress.com) for drawing our attention to a recent article in Evolution by Jerry A. Coyne entitled "Science, Religion, and Society: The Problem of Evolution in America." Dr. Coyne teaches in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, and is a well known proponent of evolution. He is also the author of the best-selling book Why Evolution Is True.

    Dr. Coyne, it appears, is very much distressed by the state of evolution in America. Polls show, among other things, that only 16% of Americans subscribe to the completely naturalistic version of evolution favored by Dr. Coyne. And this bothers him, for to Dr. Coyne it shows an abysmal ignorance of science on the part of the public. This, in turn, he says, is the result of the widespread presence of religion in America.
    Does this mean that science and religion are somehow incompatible? Dr. Coyne thinks so. He discusses several attempts by scientists to accommodate religion, and pronounces them all failures, including the late Stephen J. Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria." Dr. Coyne then suggests that the only way to gain greater acceptance for evolution is to weaken the hold of religion on America. Astonishingly, he specifically suggests persuading Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants to give up their faith! (Presumably we evangelical Protestants are beyond hope!)
    But the question remains, are religion and science really incompatible? Dr. Coyne discusses three different aspects of science, as he conceives of it, that come in conflict with religious belief: methodology, outcome, and philosophy. Dr. Coyne says that the scientific method "relies on reason, empirical investigation, criticism, doubt, predictive power, and repeatability of observations by different investigators" (p. 3). Religion, on the other hand, is based on "dogma, authority, and revelation."
    This, in turn, results in a difference of outcome. Here Dr. Coyne simply asserts that science has "disproven" the claims of religion, and that "not one scientific truth has been disproven by religion." (This latter statement is, of course, a tautology: if it is really a "truth" then by definition it has not been "disproven." Aside from that, however, most conservative Christian apologists would deny that science has "disproven" the claims of religion, and would insist that the subject of evolution is very much in debate.)
    Thirdly, there is, Dr. Coyne says, an incompatibility of philosophy. The scientific view, he says, is that "supernatural beings are not just unnecessary to explain the universe (methodological naturalism), but can be taken as nonexistent (philosophical naturalism)." This is an extraordinary claim on Dr. Coyne's part. Assuming that he includes God as a "supernatural being," what he is saying, in effect, is that science is necessarily atheistic. It will be recalled, however, that some of the most scientists in history, such as Robert Boyle and Sir Isaac Newton, believed in the existence of God. Indeed, they thought that what they were studying was God's handiwork. Nature makes rational sense precisely because it was created by an Intelligent Being.
    If Dr. Coyne is right about the implications of science, then he is right about the larger question as well: science and religion are indeed incompatible. But we think that he is wrong, and will attempt to show why in our next blog post.

How Science Committed Suicide

    In his book Why Evolution Is True, Professor Jerry A. Coyne begins by discussing a court case that involved the teaching of evolution in a public school. The school board of the Dover (PA) Area School District had adopted a simple statement to be read by high school biology teachers to their classes which said, in effect, that evolution is a theory and that Intelligent Design is an alternative explanation as to how life began. Some parents protested, and the matter eventually went to a federal court. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design was a religious belief and therefore could not be presented in a public school classroom.

    Professor Coyne's comment on the case is that the decision was "a splendid victory for American schoolchildren, for evolution, and, indeed, for science itself" (p. xiii). He then goes on to say that the battle for evolution "is a part of a wider war, a war between rationality and superstition. What is at stake is nothing less than science itself and all the benefits it offers society."

    But was the court's decision really a triumph for rationality? Frankly, it is hard to see how squelching debate and withholding information from students furthers the spirit of free inquiry. But beyond that, it can be shown that, ironically, the theory of evolution itself leads ultimately to irrationalism.

    To understand why, one must go back to the situation that existed before 1859, when Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. It was widely believed then that the world was created by God and that therefore it had a rational structure and order. This viewpoint was ably stated by an English theologian and philosopher named William Paley, who argued that the marvelous adaptation of living things to their environment was evidence that they were designed by an Intelligent Being. Nature obviously has a Designer.

    According to Prof. Coyne, it was Darwin's great achievement to demolish Paley's argument by showing that the appearance of design in nature was really the result of natural selection. ". . .the concept of natural theology, accepted by most educated Westerners before 1859, was vanquished within only a few years by a single five-hundred page book. On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life's diversity from mythology into genuine science" (p. 3).

    To understand the impact that Darwinism has had on Western culture it must be noted that not only had Darwin gotten rid of the Designer, he had gotten rid of the design itself. But then what kind of world do we live in? Prof. Coyne tells us: "The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of naturalistic materialism. Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time" (p. 224).

    But if that is the literal truth of who we are and how we got here, doesn't that mean that our lives are essentially meaningless and purposeless? Prof. Coyne does not exactly deny this, but does make what is apparently intended to be a helpful suggestion: "And although evolution operates in a purposeless, materialistic way, that doesn't mean that our lives have no purpose. Whether through religious or secular thought, we make our own purposes, meaning, and morality" (p. 231).

    This last statement is worth weighing carefully, for it gives us the key to understanding the dramatic changes that have taken place in Western culture over the past century and a half. In Prof. Coyne's view, purpose, meaning, and morality have no basis in objective reality. Rather, they are artificial and man-made. To put it crudely, we make them up as we go along. And therein lies the whole problem. For if they are essentially artificial and man-made, then they carry no real weight or authority, and frankly, people are free to ignore them as they please. To a militant secularist like Prof. Coyne this may seem tremendously liberating. But it means that there are no absolute standards of right or wrong, and consequently no such thing as justice or human rights. All we are left with, in effect, is the law of the jungle, a world full of organisms competing for scarce resources, governed by the blind forces of nature, and locked in a struggle for survival.

    But what then becomes of science? If there is no such thing as Intelligent Design, if the only intelligence is human intelligence, then rationality exists only in the human mind. When the scientist seeks to interpret the facts and make generalizations, he is imposing structure and meaning on a reality that does not possess these qualities in itself. Even the very concept of a "species" becomes suspect in a world where everything is changing and in a state of transition. How then can any generalization, any theory, be valid? Prof. Coyne (and his master Charles Darwin) have left the door open for Post-Modernism's radical critique of science.

    Nor is this scenario the idle speculation of a desperate creationist. This has been the actual course of Western philosophy since the time of Darwin. Virtually the whole story of philosophy since that time has been the attempt to do exactly as Prof. Coyne has suggested: make our own purpose, meaning, and morality. Post-Modernism has simply taken his suggestion to its logical conclusion: all truth and rationality are artificial. The theory of evolution itself is just one more "metanarrative," and deserves no more respect than any other.

    In the final analysis there is no objective rationality apart from God. Science can function only because it works in a structured cosmos created by an Intelligent Being, and because scientists themselves were created in God's image and therefore have the ability to think and reason. To reject God is to commit intellectual suicide. Ironically, Darwin the scientist destroyed the basis for science.

    Christianity was the basis of a civilization. It held that there is a rational order to the cosmos, put there by an intelligent Supreme Being. Morality originates in the mind of God and is binding on all human beings. Justice and human rights are real qualities and are worth pursuing and protecting. Christianity motivated a multitude of social reformers to devote their lives to the pursuit of an ideal; making the world a better place in which to live. It inspired some of the greatest works of art and literature in human history – the music of Bach and Handel, the paintings of Rembrandt, the poetry of Milton. And what does atheism have to offer? A meaningless existence followed by the cold grave.

Letter to a Unitarian Minister

The following is an extract from a letter we once sent to a Unitarian minister, whose sermon "Where Is Our Holy Text?" we happened to hear one Sunday morning. The minister was emphatic in denying that the Bible is a divinely inspired text, and cited a canon of several feminist authors as her own "holy text."

 

    "I appreciate the candor and frankness with which you expressed your opinions, but I do feel that they call for some sort of response. I was fortunate to have attended an evangelical seminary (Westminster, in Philadelphia), and to have been exposed to a body of conservative biblical scholarship that has examined liberal critical objections to the Bible and nevertheless found the Scriptures to be trustworthy. I was especially privileged to have taken courses under Leon Morris and Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, both of whom have written a number of very fine commentaries on various books of the New Testament. Personally, at the end of the day, I can see no reason to question the veracity and authority of the Bible.

    "I might also point out that the 'Sunday school faith' you described in your sermon was the faith of Athanasius and Augustine, of Thomas Aquinas and the Protestant Reformers, of Jonathan Edwards and the great Princeton theologians of the 19^th century. It is the historic faith of the Christian Church. It deserves to be treated with more respect than you gave it in your sermon.

    "I think that you probably approached the crux of the issue when you quoted a statement from the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 to the effect that 'All reality is self-creating.' If this statement were actually true, then you would be perfectly justified in your attempt to marginalize God. The statement, however, is palpable nonsense. If something does not yet exist, then by the very nature of the case it lacks the power to do anything. It can cause no effect, and it certainly cannot bring itself into existence. Or, to rephrase the question in more concrete biological terms, we might ask 'How did life begin'? Under a strict evolutionary scenario that excludes the possibility of 'Intelligent Design,' at some point what amounts to spontaneous generation must have occurred, which, as we know from scientific experiment, is impossible. This, then, brings us right back to the inescapable question of God. If, in fact, we have been created by a Supreme Being, then the Westminster Shorter Catechism is absolutely correct when it says that 'The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.'

    "I know that the Unitarian Universalist Association is proud of the freedom of thought that it seeks to foster within its fellowship. But at some point we as human beings have to deal with questions of ultimate truth. Is there a God? Does life have meaning and purpose? Is there really a difference between good and evil? Is there life after death? At death these issues will be inescapable, no matter how hard we tried to avoid them in life. And apart from some form of divine revelation we have no means of answering these questions, and we are left in profound ignorance of the matters most important to us. Given the attitude of Unitarians toward Scripture it is hard for me to see what can save you from the kind of abject nihilism typified by Friedrich Nietzsche. You profess to believe in a very idealistic set of social principles, but they are suspended in metaphysical thin air. The ever looming danger is that someday your ethics will catch up to your intellectual skepticism, and then you will have nothing left at all to offer society. That kind of moral skepticism is, in fact, the general trend in society today. . .

    "I will probably decline any further opportunities to participate in Unitarian church services. I have no desire to give human beings the place of honor that rightfully belongs to God alone. I noticed that your responsive reading last Sunday came from the writings of William Ellery Channing. William Ellery Channing did not give me life and health, the air I breathe or the bread I eat; much less did he die for my sins. I owe Channing nothing; I owe Christ everything. I shall worship Him Who deserves my praise and no one else. 'Therefore God has also highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father'(Phil. 2:9-11; NKJV)."

 

Sincerely,

Robert W. Wheeler

 

 

WHY EVOLUTION IS FALSE

Review:

    Why Evolution Is True

    Jerry A. Coyne, Viking, 233 pages

 

    It is perhaps fitting that the 200^th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150^th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species should see the appearance of Why Evolution Is True by Professor Jerry A. Coyne of the University of Chicago. The work is a fine exposition of the theory of evolution, both clear and readable, and certain to make its mark in the ongoing debate. Prof. Coyne shows a familiarity with Creationist arguments (which he generally treats with contempt), and interacts with them throughout his own work.

    The book, however, does not really change the nature of the debate. Prof. Coyne mainly rehashes the familiar arguments for evolution, most of them drawn from Darwin himself, whom Prof. Coyne quotes frequently and appreciatively.

    Prof. Coyne insists that evolution is a "scientific fact." What is a bit confusing to us laymen is that scientists have their own criteria for establishing a "scientific fact." According to Prof. Coyne, a scientific theory is not necessarily something debatable. A theory is a set of propositions that explain a phenomenon. If the theory seems to explain adequately the evidence, and it is confirmed by subsequent discoveries, then it is considered a "fact." A scientist like Prof. Coyne knows this as the inductive method, unbiased, objective, and incontrovertible. A lawyer like Phillip E. Johnson recognizes it as an attempt to build a case on circumstantial evidence, an argument marked by circular reasoning and logical non sequiturs. There are two major weaknesses in this kind of argument. First of all, what if the evidence does not fit perfectly, if there is something that the theory cannot explain? And secondly, What if we cannot establish a direct causal link, the proverbial "smoking gun"? In this case the question is whether or not it is even possible for evolution to take place at all.

    On the first question, let us take for example the fossil record. Prof. Coyne recites the familiar argument we have all heard before. But does the evidence really support the theory? Prof. Coyne posits a very slow process of gradual change. But that would seem to call for a vast continuum of transitional forms. What we actually see in the fossil record on the other hand is what we see today: distinct species or "discontinuities of nature," as Prof. Coyne call them. He is honest enough to make this intriguing statement: "When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups" (p. 169). That is the indisputable fact. But which theory does it support, evolution or creation? We think the latter.

    On the second question, the question of causality, it is ironic that Prof. Coyne's most original contribution to the debate, his background in genetics, serves to undermine his own argument. In the second half of the book he discusses at great length how mutations enable species to adapt to their environments, sometimes even developing new features. But all of the examples he cites involve taking existing genetic material and modifying it or recombining it in some way to generate new characteristics in the species. Once it is apparent how this "microevolution" takes place, it becomes obvious why "macroevolution" cannot take place. Macroevolution, as Prof. Coyne conceives of it, would require passing over the genetic barriers that separate one species from another. Moreover, it would involve progressing from simple forms of life to more complex. As Prof. Coyne puts it, evolution is "the amazing derivation of life's staggering diversity from a single naked replicating molecule" (p. 233). Amazing indeed it is! It is impossible! This would seemingly require adding new genetic material where it did not previously exist. A mutation modifies an existing gene; it does not create a new one. Since each species has a set number of chromosomes, and the chromosomes come in pairs, in most cases the evolution from one species to another would require adding whole pairs of chromosomes. What Prof. Coyne has not explained is where the extra chromosomes would come from. Thus, while microevolution is quite explicable, macroevolution seems genetically impossible. The "murder weapon" in the case remains to be found.     

Thus, in spite of Prof. Coyne's fine effort to produce a very readable and informative book, we are pretty much where we began: Darwinism is still vulnerable to most of the same criticisms that were leveled against it in Darwin's own day. In fact, in some ways, Prof. Coyne's explanation of the genetics involved makes the Theory of Evolution even less convincing. But the book is a useful primer for anyone interested in the controversy.

                        Robert W. Wheeler