I. Introduction
Terms & Concepts
• Multi-faceted scientific issue
- biology and chemistry
- some physics, geology, astronomy
- Subdisciplines
• Non-Biblical topic
• Distractions to the issue
- age of earth
- big bang
- plate tectonics
• Confusing terms and “evolving” jargon
http://plantsci.missouri.edu/roberts/comment.htm
Change Over Time
• Chemical Evolution (called “abiogenesis”):
self-organization of life from non-life
Change Over Time
• Chemical Evolution (called “abiogenesis”):
self-organization of life from non-life
• General Evolution (called “macroevolution”):
simple to complex, an extrapolation, a model
Complex Life
Simple Life
Change Over Time
• Chemical Evolution (called “abiogenesis”):
self-organization of life from non-life
• General Evolution (also “macroevolution”):
simple to complex, an extrapolation, a model
• Special Evolution (like “microevolution”):
changes within a gene pool, testable
• Related concepts:
Theistic Evolution, Exobiology, Progressive Creation
1999 Gallup Poll: overall stats
9%
Atheistic Evolution
40%
Theistic Evolution
When stats are “broken down…”
many educated people believe in
theistic evolution
47%
Creation
II. Special Evolution Occurs
No Evolution
“Fixity of Species”
Special Evolution
Gene
Pool
Gene
Pool
Gene
Pool
Gene
Pool
Gene
Pool
Gene
Pool
Gene
Pool
Kind
“Species” not equal to “Kind”
(A.J. Jones, 1972)
Biblical Language
Kind
Secular Language
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Special Evolution
Male Guppies with “few predators”
Male Guppies with “many predators”
“Evolution”
via “speciation”
Common ancestor?
Then, species evolve from species … to a point.
Kind
III. Chemical Evolution Is a Belief
“…the very first cause,
which was certainly not
mechanical.
It is unphilosophical
to seek for any other origin
of the world or to pretend
that it might arise out of a
chaos by the mere laws of
nature.”
Isaac Newton
• Life from life (Biogenesis: bio - genesis)
• Life from non-life (Abiogenesis: a - bio - genesis)
… not the “First Cause” issue (cosmology)
… related to the “Design” issue (teleology)
… like “Intelligence vs. Matter” question
Clarifying the Issue
- abiogenesis • Abiogenesis is “chemical evolution.”
• It is the doctrine of unassisted “self-organization.”
• Bible teaches life from non-living building blocks.
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living being. (Gen 2:7)
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of
the field and every bird of the sky…. (Gen 2:19)
• More relevant, Bible teaches life from the living God.
Scientific Support?
- Mathematics of Self-Organization • Computer models
• Virtual, not real Biochemistry
• Not highly regarded by many
biochemists
• “Fact-free” science
• Kauffman vs. Dembski
Scientific Support?
- Chemistry of Self-Organization -
Specifically ...
... what are the steps?
Proteins First?
Amino acids
Most AA
Peptides
Adenine
H2O
H
H
+H
3N
C
R
COO-
+H
3N
C
R
COO-
• Assumes early
atmosphere was
reducing (no O2)
• Does not imply
formation of
complex
molecules
• Requires
intelligence
Building blocks?
Maybe, including
“non-life” forms.
What we have
made ...
Bricks, or half bricks
What we have left
to make ...
Manhattan
“We have reached a situation where a theory
has been accepted as fact by some, and possible
contrary evidence is shunted aside.”
It is “mythology rather than science.”
Robert Shapiro, 1986
(Dep of Chemistry, SUNY)
RNA first?
If not proteins, then what? RNA?
Adenine
(RNA also a “ribozyme”)
(Modified to input HCN)
Adenine is
half of a
building
block
Adenine
• 3 other
bases
needed
for RNA
• All need a
sugarphosphate
• Still requires 3 other bases (likely)
• Bases must bond to sugar-phosphate
• All nucleotides need to organize in
exact sequence (100s of them)
• Still requires 3 other bases (likely)
• Bases must bond to sugar-phosphate
• All nucleotides need to organize in
exact sequence (100s of them)
• Need DNA at some point
• DNA has extra nucleotide
• Its nucleotides must be in sequence
(500,000 at least)
• Then, it must FUNCTION
(often argued that first life
did not have DNA
… the “RNA World”)
“We have reached a situation where a theory
has been accepted as fact by some, and possible
contrary evidence is shunted aside.”
It is “mythology rather than science.”
Robert Shapiro, 1986
PhD, Dep of Chemistry, SUNY
Function
Life from RNA World?
The cell:
Manhattan
The machine:
A city block
of
Manhattan
Adenine:
half of a
building
block.
“Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide
neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always
molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been
the first replicating molecule and that chemists are
exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis.”
“The second group of scientists are more pessimistic.
They believe that the de novo appearance of
oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been
a near miracle.”
G.F. Joyce and L.E. Orgel, 1998
“Unfortunately, the optimism surrounding the RNA world
ignores known chemistry. In many ways the RNA-world
fad of the 1990’s is reminiscent of the Stanley Miller
phenomenon during the 1960’s: hope struggling valiantly
against experimental data.”
Michael Behe, Dep of Biology, Lehigh University
Other Abiogenesis Ideas
• Proteinoids
• Microspheres
• Protocells
• Progenote (now called
the “Universal Ancestor”)
“protocells”
cyanobacteria
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available
to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin
of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle….”
Francis Crick
Biogenesis
• Life from non-life (Abiogenesis: a - bio - genesis)
no intelligence
• Life from life elsewhere (Biogenesis: bio - genesis)
intelligence
Life from Life Elsewhere
• Exobiology: life on other planets
• Directed Panspermia: cells sent here from aliens
“…life was sent here in the
form of bacteria suitable
for growth in anaerobic
conditions, and that
several somewhat
different forms would
probably have been sent
at the same time, in hope
that at least one would
survive.”
Francis Crick
III. General Evolution Is a Model
Complex Life
= gene pool
Simple Life
Is Special Evolution
related to
General Evolution?
Question: Does special evolution ...
… plus billions of years …
… necessitate general evolution?
Special Evolution + Time =
/ General Evolution
…plus time…
… does not necessarily imply …
Is Special Evolution
related to
General Evolution?
Academically. General Evolution is a model
assumed from Special Evolution.
Data
Extrapolation
Known
Unknown…
but stated as known
Darwin’s Finches:
General Evolution? Special Evolution? Evolution?
Typical study
• Excellent procedure
• Generous extrapolations
Jonathan Wells, 2000
Grant Studies on Galapagos
Tower
equator
James
Pacific Ocean
EQUADOR
Bartolome
Baltra
Galapagos
Islands
Fernandia
Santa Cruz
Isabela
Floreana
Hood
Daphne
Major
Island
Common ancestor? Anyone dispute possibility?
Medium ground finch
1970’s
• Tagged every “individual” medium ground finch
• Recorded adult weight, beak size, and diet
• Recorded mating and offspring
• Documented seed diversity and availability
• Recorded climatic data (rainfall)
1997: Drought Year
• 1” during rainy season; normal = 5”
• Fewer seed
• Small soft seed depleted
• Loss of 85% individuals
• Survivors were larger
• Survivors had 5% larger beaks (beak “depth”)
1997 drought…
“…a selection event.”
Change
in
Beak Depth
} 5% increase in beak size
1977
Time
Change
in
Beak Depth
Is this evolution? Even special evolution?
• Possibly, birds evolve from birds
• But only a half mm change in beak
• Also, no new species named
• Beak size stable?
} 5% increase in beak size
1977
Time
If beak size kept increasing…
“about 20 selection events would have sufficed”
for all finches on Galapagos to have evolved.
Droughts occur once per decade, so…
… 1 drought per 10 years
… 20 droughts = 200 years
(Grant, 1991)
Change
in
Beak Depth
“3 selection events”
(need 17 more)
drought
drought
Time
drought
1982: El Nino year
• 5 times normal rainfall
• 10 times rainfall of previous year
• Small soft seed replenished
• Bird population increased
• Birds in 1983 were smaller
• Birds in 1983 had smaller beaks
“no net change”
Change
in
Beak Depth
?
1977
1984
Time
“… a reversal in the direction of selection.”
(Gibbs and Grant, 1987)
“Selection had flipped … the birds took a giant step
backward after their giant step forward.”
(Weiner, 1994)
“… the population is oscillating back and forth ….”
(Grant, 1991)
• No “net” evolution occurring, even special evolution
• No “simple-to-complex” (directional)
• The “truth” has changed in 10 years
• More to say…
- Species are merging (evolution in reverse)
- Claims of evidence for general evolution continue
- These were not Darwin’s finches
Darwin’s theory of the origin of the species “fits the facts of
Darwin’s finch evolution on the Galapagos Islands,” and “the
driving force” is natural selection.
(Grant and Grant, 1996, 1998)
This “illustrates how we can extrapolate from natural
selection operating within a species to explain the
diversification of the finches from a single common
ancestor.”
(Ridley, 1996)
Today
Billions of
years ago
The Science
•
•
•
•
Collected 9 of the 13 finches, identifying 6 as finches
Only twice observed differences in their diets
Failed to correlate diet with beak shape
Did not separate them by island
(this was done by John Gould upon return to England)
(much of Darwin’s info corrected by shipmate records)
“Darwin possessed only a limited and largely erroneous
conception of both the feeding habits and the geographical
distribution of these birds.”
(Sulloway, 1982, 1984)
The Myth
“…the correspondence between the beaks of the 13 finches
and their food source immediately suggested to Darwin that
evolution had shaped them.”
Raven and Johnson, 1999
Students can “imagine themselves in Darwin’s place” and
“write journal pages that Darwin could have written.”
Johnson, 1998
What do we learn from this study?
No Scientific Problems … Scientist Problems
• Special evolution, if occurred, was extrapolated to
general evolution
(data that agreed with the Bible—birds evolving into birds—
presented as contradicting the Bible.)
• No simple-to-complex, but used as such
• Darwin seeing finches described as sudden finding
- in reality, this is a myth
- the finch is a “holy relic”
(Wells, 2000)
IV. Theistic Evolution Is Non-Biblical
Theistic Evolution
Biogenesis
Intelligence
or Life
+
General Evolution
Simple
Life
(Billions of years)
Complex
Life
(Billions of years)
• common decent with God’s help
• general evolution minus naturalism
Common Descent? Simple to Complex?
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being. (Gen 2:7)
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of
the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to
the man to see what he would call them…. (Gen 2:19)
?
V. How is this issue addressed?
Invalid Use of Terms
“Special Evolution” not recognized
or is used interchangeably with “Evolution.”
Known
Unknown…
but stated as known
Invalid Concept
There are two choices.
NonLife
Simple
Life
Complex
Life
Invalid Claim
Abiogenesis + General Evolution
are undisputed by reputable scientists.
NonLife
Simple
Life
Complex
Life
http://www.discovery.org/csc/scienceEducation/
Invalid Strawman
“Creationists believe in fixity of species”
“Scientific creationists believe … that all species
of organisms were individually created looking
just like they do today.”
Raven and Johnson
A Good Comparision?
Evolution
Creation
A Good Comparision?
Evolution
Science
Creation
Faith
A Good Comparision?
Evolution
Science
Natural history
Creation
Faith
Oral history
A Good Comparision?
Evolution
Science
Natural history
Fact
Creation
Faith
Oral history
Myth
“Science tells us how;
Religion tells us why.”
A Scientific Consideration
Special Evolution:
provable, proven
General Evolution:
not provable
A Fair Philosophical Question
General Evolution:
not “provable”
Creation:
not “provable”
V. How is this issue addressed?
• Teaching the creation account (Bible)
V. How is this issue addressed?
• Teaching the creation account (Bible)
• Poor teaching on evolution (science)
But even to this day, when Moses is read,
a veil lies on their heart.
Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord,
the veil is taken away.
2 Cor 3:15-16 NKJ
“Science is knowledge.
Evolution is a theory, not knowledge.
Therefore, evolution is not science.”
“Charles Darwin was not a good scientist.”
“Species do not evolve from species.”
“Let the earth sprout vegetation:
plants yielding seed, and
fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit
after their kind with seed in them ….” (Gen 1:11)
Rudeness
… but, speaking the truth in love ....
Eph 4:15 NKJ
… always be ready to give a defense
to everyone who asks you
a reason for the hope that is in you,
with meekness and fear.
I Pet 3:15 NKJ
Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord,
we persuade men.
2 Cor 5:11 NKJ
V. How is this issue addressed?
• Teaching the creation account (Bible)
• Poor teaching on evolution (science)
• No teaching
So David inquired of the LORD, saying,
“Shall I go up against the Philistines?”
2 Sam 5:19 NKJ
“I’m not much of a fighter.”
Who is this uncircumcised Philistine,
that he should taunt the armies of the living God?
1 Sam 17:26 NKJ
“I see no need to be involved,
in my situation.”
Now while Paul waited for them at Athens,
his spirit was provoked within him
when he saw that the city was given over to idols.
Acts 17:16 NKJ
“You’re not gonna change anybody.”
Yet, if you warn the wicked,
and he does not turn from his wickedness,
nor from his wicked way,
he shall die in his iniquity;
But you have delivered your soul.
Ezek 3:19 NKJ
V. How is this issue addressed?
• Teaching the creation account (Bible)
• Poor teaching on evolution (science)
• No teaching
www.arn.org
www.discovery.org
www.answersingenesis.org
www.talkorigins.org
www.pandasthumb.org
VI. A more excellent way
• Do it!
Who knows
whether you have come to the kingdom
for such a time as this?
Esther 4:14 NKJ
VI. A more excellent way
• Do it!
• Learn what to say.
VI. A more excellent way
• Do it!
• Learn what to say.
• Be sympathetic.
For though I am free from all men,
I have made myself a servant to all, t
hat I might win the more;
… to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews;
… to those who are without law, as without law
that I might win those who are without law;
… to the weak I became as weak,
that I might win the weak.
I have become all things to all men,
that I might by all means save some.
1 Cor 9:19-22 NKJ
To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews;
To the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak.
To the contemporary scientist, I became ?,
that I might fight instead of trying to win them.
I have become all things to all men,
except to contemporary scientists.
??
VI. A more excellent way
•
•
•
•
Do it!
Learn what to say.
Be sympathetic.
Trust in the Lord.
Only Luke is with me.
2 Tim 4:11 NKJ
Scientists
•
•
•
•
•
You are trained for this.
You are blessed, talented, needed.
Many count on you.
You are not saving souls through science.
You are trying to remove obstacles.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Take a stand. Fight. Do not be my brother.
Speak the truth in love; persuade people.
Make central arguments. Avoid the periphery.
Make the logical arguments.
Be honest.
Stay in your lane.
Pray.
Evangelists
• You can persuade atheists and agnostics.
• You have training in the scriptures.
• You may not have training in science.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Speak the truth in love.”
Know the basics.
Learn the minimal language.
Be careful of blanket statements.
Ask help from the scientists.
“Do not fear their intimidation.”
Be aware of your effect on the members.
And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead,
some mocked, while others said,
"We will hear you again on this matter."
So Paul departed from among them.
However, some men joined him and believed ....
Acts 17:32-34 NKJ
www.arn.org
www.discovery.org
www.answersingenesis.org
www.talkorigins.org
www.pandasthumb.org