The Truth of evolution

I was recently listening to Dr. Al Mohler’s radio program (via MP3), whom I normally have the highest respect for, but the topic this time was the conflict of evolution and the Christian worldview. He was addressing how some so called Christians’ subscription to evolution was evidence that they were going wishy-washy on Genesis or true Biblical Christianity. I agreed with a lot of what he said, provided I interpreted his use of “evolution” as Darwinism. So I just want to clear the air (or muddy it as some will likely see it) on what is true and scientific about evolution and what is not.

My main concern is in our use and understanding of the jargon that goes along with any discussion of this kind. Equivocation on what evolution actually is, can and does lead to misunderstandings which results in people of faith and people of science talking past each other rather than with each other.

Evolution is a theory which hypothesizes the process of descent with modification to account for diversity of organisms. This process posits the role of natural selection in filtering for preferable phenotypes which are distributed in a given population because of genetic variation and random mutations produced during reproduction. Homology of anatomical or morphological features (body parts and functions) is now known to be explained by parallel homology of genetic material (DNA) between or among species. Common ancestry is considered the explanation for such homologous features.

This may be surprising to some of you, but I agree with all the above but the last sentence. Let’s take a closer look at some of the key terms and ideas above to see why.

1. Descent with modification – basically means that offspring are not identical to each other or their parents, (come on, Jacob and Esau teach us this!). There is always some shuffling of DNA and genes from one generation to the next. NOTE: more recent discoveries of horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes have modified this aspect to include obtaining genetic material from non-parental sources like plasmids, viral transposons or other HGT mechanisms.

2. Natural Selection – this is the process whereby certain traits or phenotypes are preserved in the gene pool due to selective advantages or adaptations to habitation, limited resources or competitors/predators. This is true observation.

3. Random mutations (Unguided Heritable Variation) – when DNA gets replicated, sometimes mistakes are made; these mistakes can be silent, harmful, fatal, or more rarely, advantageous (as in the case of antibiotic resistance of some bacteria). True observation.

4. Homology – this just means “similarity”. It used to apply to morphological features like skull shape or limb structure. It now includes similarity of DNA sequences. True observation.

5. Universal Common Ancestry – this is the unifying principle of evolution; not just that we as humans share a common ancestor, which is reasonable (even Biblical!), but that all organisms are distantly related. Theory, not a proven observation.

So I think it’s important that Christians are informed when commenting on evolution as it impacts the Christian worldview or what gets taught in schools, so that Christians don’t needlessly raise contentions between faith and science where they are unwarranted. Most of the observations above (#1-4) are real and true and thus are not in conflict with Biblical Christianity. Furthermore, they can and do contribute to Intelligent Design (ID) theory as an alternative scientific theory to common ancestry (more on ID theory later).

So if you go back to my initial definition of evolution, confusion arises when some people see that evolution does account for some biological diversity but then extrapolate that it can account for all biological diversity (microevolution vs. macroevolution, if you will). It behooves us as Christians to recognize truth no matter what the source and use words with an understanding for whats behind them.

An Open Letter to a Muslim

In response to an Original Op-Ed Article in the MSU State News by Abdulahi Ahmed Sufi.

Abdulahi,
Some comments on your article yesterday. I agree that discrimination against innocent people is always wrong. It saddens me that people act violently against others they disagree with, this is the antithesis of tolerance …and that is exactly why I support the intellectual (not physical) banishment of Islamic ideology from our society.

Islam is similar to Christianity epistemologically in that it is a religion which is grounded upon revelation; our belief and behavior as members of our religion are derivative from and limited by the teachings of the Bible and Qur’an, respectively. They are also similar in the provision of archetypes which exemplify these teachings and solicit our emulation, namely, Jesus and Mohammad. When one compares the two revelations and archetypes there is no reason to condone Islamic ideology. Both the revelation, according to the interpretation of self-acclaiming law of abrogation (Naskh), and archetype (historical and Hadith testimony of Mohammad’s life) support a less than kind characterization of Islam as violent and intolerant of other faiths, especially those believing in the Trinity: God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (NOT Father, Jesus and Mary as the Qur’an erroneously teaches). Shari'a law, the testimony of Mark Gabriel and many others affirm this intolerance and legitimizes lawful and intellectual censure of Islamic ideology.

Your statement “Our religion teaches us peaceful coexistence with everyone, just like any other religion our there” is complete fabrication and perfect example of “al Taqiyya”, a form of deception for the cause of Allah, which is common in westernized versions of Islam. On these points, ironically, I agree that our society and university should support further study of Islam and its historical track record, religious teachings and socio-political value worldwide. Physical and personal attacks are always wrong, but intellectual and philosophical censure is par for the course.

Respectfully,
Josh _______

Causality and the Big Bang(er)

I’m currently reading a book on science, God and Intelligent Design theory, it’s called “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” by John Lennox. It is, by far, the best book I know of on science, philosophy and God. (Highly recommended). Anyway, I came upon this idea of “causality” and started learning about this old dude named Aristotle and his idea that there are 4 causes that explain the existence of every physical thing in the world. I found it very interesting.

Aristotle’s Four Causes

“Cause” just means “explanatory factor” or some type of answer to “Why?” questions.

1. Material Cause – what a thing is made of, what it consists of.

2. Formal Cause – the pattern, shape or form.

3. Efficient Cause – the process and effort that produced the thing.

4. Final Cause – the intended purpose or usefulness.

So how about an example. What are the Four Causes of a chair?

1. Material – wood, glue, nails or screws

2. Formal – this would be like the blueprint of the chair, the plan or idea of what the pieces were (legs, seat, back, glue, nails) and how they fit together to make the whole; the overall shape.

3. Efficient – this would be the “elbow grease” that went into making the chair, the effort or energy by a carpenter and his power tools.

4. Final – we sit on a chair, that’s the end goal or purpose of a chair; to sit on it.

I think Aristotle is missing one though (maybe I’m wrong, I haven’t read a lot of Aristotle… ). I think he’s missing an Initial Cause. The Initial Cause would explain not only the chair, but the tree that the wood came from, the metal that makes the screws, the carpenter, tools and electricity that made the chair. If you fancy the Big Bang theory, it would be whatever caused the Big Bang in the first place, the Un-caused Cause, which role God happens to fit quite nicely.

The application to science and ID theory is that often scientists are only concerned with Material and Efficient causes; basically, what is stuff made of (matter) and what makes it go (energy). Some biologists go further to study formal and final causes with relationship to the structure/function relationships of their proteins or cells.

My comments are:

1. Scientists largely avoid this idea of Initial Cause, meaning God, which some ID theorists might argue is the same as the Formal Cause because of the "conservation of information". Meaning, information is not produced by random events but requires a mind.

They like the Big Bang, but don’t like talking about what or Who caused it.

2. Scientists don’t have a problem applying structure/function principles to the study of small biological molecules like protein and DNA but they fail to see the inference of applying it to man. Man’s Material Causes are pretty complex (DNA, cells, tissues, organs, limbs…), they think Darwinian mechanisms can account for both Formal and Efficient Cause and that there is no Final Cause, except to pass on our genes (ala Dawkins' "Selfish Gene"). Anyways, I’m not done with the book yet, but it’s really, really good.

Cloverfield: post-modern existentialism du jour

The recent movie “Cloverfield” is a genre busting adventure in cinematography and storytelling. Some have called it “Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla”, which I think is an adequate analogy, however I think some other elements are worth discussing.


30-Second Overview: Home-video style video tape is found in “former” Central Park (NY) containing this footage: Bunch of people at a party, you meet people with various connections and potential love connections. Party is interrupted by scary noises outside which happens to be a monster attacking the city and boxing with the Statue of Liberty. Panic breaks out and people scatter, chaos ensues. In the process of trying to escape/help people/find out what happened, more chaos ensues with army personnel helping people, shooting stuff, and people exploding from little monster bites, oh, and more chaos. More people die. We find out some mega-monster is causing the ruckus and it eats one of the guys operating the camera. Video camera then is taken up by the other male and female protagonists who try to escape the monster and huddle under a bridge that ends up collapsing on top of them (where they probably die, unclear), but not before expressing their love for each other. End of tape.

My take at the film-maker's message: Life is full of chaos and uncertainty and has no inherent meaning, people in authority are weak and also don’t really know what to do but relationships and finding love is the best we can hope for before we all die.

Post-modern flavor: None of us has a complete picture of what’s going on around us because we only have our own limited perspective (which is as shaky and jarring as a person holding a camcorder running down the street) or we have to trust others who either are trying to hide something from us or give us equally incomplete information.

Existential hints: Life is chaotic, (ala monsters destroying stuff and eating people and people running from or to something so fast they don’t know why) we often don’t know what is going on and must infuse our own meaning or purpose into life (ala “I love you”) otherwise its really depressing. Then we die.

So, at the end of the movie, if you were left with this shaken, unsettled feeling, yet with this tiny hint of “well, at least they got to tell each other ‘I love you’”, then I think the film maker has accomplished his goal. Movies are more than just “wow-factor” entertainment, they are stories, and stories should have meaning, and meaning is not infused by each of us individually, (ironically, that is the existential view of art) but by the author in particular. Was that the film maker’s goal? If you disagree with this interpretation, what do you think the film-maker was trying to communicate in this film?

Sufficiency of General Revelation vs. "sola scriptura"

Is all truth and knowledge contained in the Bible? (No.)

Can man know about God apart from the Bible? (Yes.)

What exactly can man know apart from the Bible (i.e. Special Revelation)?

Sir Francis Bacon is the “father” of the scientific method and was a devout believer in the Bible. He wrote,

"There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."

This idea was not novel to Bacon but highlighted in the Belgic Confession which was penned sometime during Bacon’s early childhood (~1560’s). Psalm 19 speaks of both; “the heavens declaring the glory of God” and also “the law and testimony of the Lord converting the soul and making wise the simple”. In Romans 1, Paul explains that God has revealed His existence universally through what He has made (v.20). God has assured that such communication is plain to everyone (v.19), being seen clearly and understood from the creation (v.21). This external general revelation in nature has the purpose of teaching man about God’s eternal power and His divine nature (v.20). Romans 2:14-15 tells us that man has God’s law written on their hearts in the form of a conscience, alternately accusing or excusing their actions. Romans 1:32 even says that man knows that he is condemned by God.
So from these verses I take away three things that man can know without even reading the Bible.
Gen. Rev. is sufficient to tell us:

1. That God or some type of Supreme Being or Creator exists.

2. That moral categories of good and evil exist; (i.e. a moral law).

3. That mankind has a moral deficiency with respect to that law and is condemned by that God.

So, if we think about our sinfulness as a lethal disease that we all need a remedy for, then Gen. Rev. is sufficient to lead man to the correct diagnosis of that disease, but unable to know the correct remedy. That remedy is the atoning work of Jesus Christ. And that remedy is only available through repentance and faith in Him. And we can not have faith in someone whom we have no knowledge of, i.e. through the scriptures and preaching of the gospel (Spec. Rev.) Romans 3:21 expresses than the righteousness of God has been manifested (in Christ) and Romans 10:13-17 makes it clear that it is only available to us by hearing the gospel contained in scripture.
So, Spec. Rev. (the Bible) is necessary (but not sufficient, meaning: not all who simply hear the gospel are saved, that’s where the H.S. comes in) for salvation. However, General Revelation (God’s created order), although it can’t save and has been corrupted by sin, is revelation from God just the same and as such, retains the residue of its Maker and thus is effective when we use it to:
1. Point men to our need of a Savior who is revealed in the Bible.
2. Bring glory to God when we recognize how He has organized our world (including logic, physics, chemistry, biology, the mind, emotions, language, music, colors, food…!)
God gets glory when we enjoy these things, and see Him as the author of every good gift (James 1:17).

My main point: sometimes I think we (Reformed Christians) understand “sola scriptura” to mean there is no other source of knowledge or revelation from God outside the Bible, which can lead to a tacit anti-intellectualism and the (grievous, in my estimation) error of not using Gen. Rev. to its fullest potential.

(If you want to wrestle some more, compare Rom 3:11 “no one understands or seeks after God” and Acts 17:26-27 “God has organized providence so that man might seek Him and maybe find Him”!)

Do I really have to respect your opinion?

Ever hear someone accuse a Christian of being “intolerant” because he or she has been vocal about expressing Biblical convictions about this or that social or moral issue? Does that accusation carry any weight? I have 2 major reasons why it doesn’t.

1. Freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee you freedom from critique. There is a prevalent misconception in society today regarding people’s rights in public discourse. In the U.S. the first amendment guarantees us “freedom of speech”. This means anybody can say whatever they want without the risk of physical or otherwise coercive measures to silence or censor them. However, equal opportunity to speak your opinion does not mean that all opinions are equally valid. That is, not all opinions are equally true or justified. Opinions are usually some type of positive claim to knowledge or truth and as such the need to be supported by reason, evidence or experience. Is this just “my opinion”? Haha, no, it is the necessary requirement of a knowledge or truth claim.

For example, if I have the opinion that the sun revolves around the earth and you think that the earth just spins and revolves around the sun… those opinions are not equally valid, they are subject to certain lines of evidence. However if I were to say Paul McCartney was the best Beatle, and you favored John Lennon then we would have a difference of opinion because it is a matter of preference, not truth. The first is an objective truth the second is a subjective preference. Tolerance comes into play in both cases, but it does not involve respecting the opinion, but respecting the person.

Voltaire defined tolerance when he said

“I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it.”

When we are talking to people, it is important to separate the ideas that are being expressed from the people that are expressing them. We have obligations to treat people kindly and respectfully even while we challenge their opinions or ideas.

2. The Intolerance of Tolerance.
It is important to clarify the definition of tolerance because many get it wrong. Many would hold that if someone simply says that you, or something you do, is morally wrong, that you are being intolerant. Let's just see how self-defeating that definition is.
a) If you say someone or something is wrong then your “intolerant”
b) Being intolerant is bad (some think it the worst of vices!)
c) Therefore if you call someone intolerant you have just accused yourself because you are saying that being intolerant is wrong and of course saying that someone else is wrong is intolerant! See how easily that definition collapses on itself? Don’t let anyone get away with abusing the terminology at your expense and squelching your courage to speak the truth as it is found in Christ.
Be salt and light in your spheres of influence; who else is going to do it?

Living up to my Grandfather's Legacy

I met with him today, his pancreatic cancer is gaining on him, jaundice is becoming more apparent, strength almost gone from his right hand. But his words were not slurred as they have been in previous weeks. He spoke clearly and with animation that I hadn't heard for a long time, of the old wooden desk chair that he'd refurbished, how he'd gotten it from a friend of his that was going to throw it away and how he fixed it himself, replaced the undercarriage, stripped off the padding and re-stained it to perfectly match his cherry-wood colored desk. Now I will have that chair and know of its resurrection.

Cousin Joel arrived, we chatted of his being elected to deacon, Martha and the kids were traveling to Canada and about grandpa's inserts and poems. He told me to fetch a copy of his latest poem for Joel and I. 30 years of writing inserts for the church bulletin, of stumping friends and even new acquaintances with his Bible riddles, of the testimony of Christ that pours from his lips, watering every person he ever met.

I've inherited a steep legacy from grandpa, hopefully I can gain traction in people's hearts the way he has and point them further up the path where he has and is traveling; where we can all finally sit down and talk of how Rom 1:17 played through our lives.