The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part Two

Last week we considered the difference between primary and secondary causes as well as operation science and origin science. In doing so we concluded that evolution is seeking to apply the principles of operation science to explain things that by their very nature only happened once. This week we want to consider the question of whether intelligent primary causes are possible.

    Origin science is not restricted to secondary causes (the natural causes that operate the universe); therefore, origin science sometimes finds evidence that suggests an intelligent primary cause.(1) Previously we considered the example of the detectives and medical examiners on the television show, CSI. These law enforcement personnel have to determine for each death whether they are looking for a natural cause of death or a murderer—an intelligent cause. More often than not it is concluded that an intelligent being has intervened to bring about the victim's demise.

    In the case of the origin of life, what type of evidence is needed to safely suggest the handiwork of an intelligent being? Noted evolutionist, Carl Sagan, has said that a single message from outer space would confirm his belief that there is extraterrestrial life.(2) Unwittingly, Sagan has admitted that some normal events such as communication require an intelligent cause. Do you remember Alphabets Cereal? It's that sugary kid's cereal where the pieces are shaped like the letters of the alphabet. Suppose you awoke one morning to find the following message spelled out on the table in cereal, "Good morning, honey. I hope you have a good day at school today. Love, Mom." Your first inclination is not to assume that the box of cereal tipped over and the characters randomly assembled themselves to deliver you a message. Rather, your first reaction would be to perceive that some intelligent source, in this case your mother, has purposefully arranged the bits of cereal to deliver a message.

    The type of order necessary to spell out messages in cereal is known as specified complexity and it always points to an intelligent primary cause. Specified complexity is more than simply design or order; it is order of a complex nature that possesses a clear and specific function.(3) Consider the following three types of order.

• Orderly (repetitive) and specified (GIFT GIFT GIFT GIFT). Example: crystal, nylon
  
• Complex (unrepeating) and unspecified (TGELDHT TBWMHQC PUQHBT). Example: random polymers.
  
• Complex (unrepeating) and specified (THIS SENTENCE CARRES A MESSAGE). Example: DNA(4)
  

Only one of these three types of order is the result of intelligent intervention. "It is obvious that wherever we see a clear and distinct message—a complex design with a specified function—it was caused by some form of intelligent intervention imposing limits on the natural matter that it would not take by itself."(5)

    To bring the point home let us consider two geological formations. As we make this comparison, we need to remember that origin science is a forensic science based upon the principle of uniformity, which maintains that causes in the past are similar to the causes we observe today.(6) In order to illustrate the point, consider the following question, "What caused the Grand Canyon?" Even though we were not there to see the formation of the Grand Canyon, we can observe the natural process of water erosion causing canyons today and see the results produced, which are similar to the Grand Cayon. Therefore, we can surmise that the Grand Canyon was formed through the natural process of water erosion even though we did not directly observe its origin.(7)

    In contrast, no reasonable person consistently applying the principle of uniformity would look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that it was the result of the natural process of water erosion. "Since we never observe natural laws chiseling a highly detailed sculpture of a president's head into stone at the present time, we rightly conclude that natural laws couldn't have done it in the past either."(8) In the present, we observe that only intelligent beings are capable of carving detailed sculptures out of rock. "As a result, we rightly conclude that, in the past, only an intelligent being (a sculptor) could have created the faces on Mount Rushmore."(9)

    The implications of these conclusions are magnified when one considers the extraordinary complexities of human life. Recall that Darwin theorized that all life emerged form a one-celled organism through spontaneous generation alone (natural process). This is the height of absurdity when one considers that a single strand of DNA contains the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias worth of complex information. "Natural laws have never been observed to create a simple message like 'Drink Coke,' much less a message 1,000 encyclopedias long."(10) Spontaneous generation of life according to the Darwinian model has never been observed. Rather life only arises from similar existing life.(11) Ironically, any experiment that seeks to prove the spontaneous generation life suffers from the intelligent intervention of the scientist conducting the study.

    We have seen that it is valid science to look for intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeology is based on this principle. When archeologists discover pottery or arrowheads they rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it.(12) Likewise, present experience tells us that intelligent causes should be sought anytime we find specified complexity. "This gives us a criteria to show when an intelligent cause is operating and when it is not."(13)

Even the noted atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker, acknowledges that life bears evidence of design. Dawkins writes, "Biology is the study of completed things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."(14) Despite acknowledging "the intricate architecture and precision-engineering"(15) in each of the trillions of cells in the human body, Dawkins rejects the notion that any form of life is the product of design. All of this highlights the point Norman Geisler and Frank Turek make in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, "the creation-evolution debate is not about religion verses science or the Bible verses science—it's about good science verses bad science."(16)

Since evolutionary biologists can offer no support for spontaneous generation, either empirical or forensic, it appears the "scientific" deck has been stacked against creationism by ruling out intelligent primary causes in advance. Phillip Johnson, author of the essay, The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, states "Darwinism is based on an a priori (prior) commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses."(17) Physicist Hurbert Yockey confesses, "The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously form nonliving matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."(18)

Yockey highlights the dirty little secret naturalists don't want the public to know. Naturalism is a religion. It takes more faith for a reasonable person to believe that life spontaneously arose from nonlife than it does to believe that God, an intelligent cause designed the created order.

Endnotes:

1. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 216.
   
2. Ibid., 216-217.
   
3. Ibid., 217.
   
4. Ibid., 217.
   
5. Ibid., 217.
   
6. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 117.
   
7. Ibid., 117-118.
   
8. Ibid., 118.
   
9. Ibid., 118.
   
10. Ibid., 118.
    
11. Ibid., 118.
    
12. Geisler and Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. 217.
    
13. Ibid.,218.
    
14. Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker. (New York: Norton, 1987), 1.
    
15. Ibid., 3.
    
16. Geisler and Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. 120.
    
17. Phillip E. Johnson. "The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism," First Things (November 1997): 22-25.
    
18. Hubert Yockey. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 284.
    

The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part One

Most modern Americans associate the theory of evolution with the publication of On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin, in 1859. In reality, many nontheists prior to Darwin believed the universe was eternal or uncaused. Darwin's pivotal contribution was the notion of natural selection, which provided a mechanism to make evolution work beginning with matter alone. According to Darwin, life began as the result of chemical relations in a "warm little pool."(1) Over time, through the process of natural selection, new life forms evolved as organisms adapted new characteristics to meet the challenges of their changing environment. Darwin appealed to the fossil record to prove his theory that species that adapted survived while those who did not passed into extinction.

    For Bible believers this naturalistic explanation for the origin of life does not pass the scrutiny of Scripture for a number of reasons. Adam was created as a fully functioning adult male made in the image and likeness of God. Moreover, Genesis one reports that the myriad of life observable in the biosphere was created in fully developed adult form and reproduced after their own kind. Lastly, the Bible is explicitly clear that God alone is responsible for the complex design of the crated order:

• Genesis 1:1—"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
  
• John 1:1-3—"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) The same was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
  

  
   

The observant reader will notice how God's word clearly teaches that the universe is not eternal since it did not exit before God created it. Consequently, at every turn the Bible stands against the unproven theoretical suppositions of evolutionary theory.

    Unfortunately, the prevailing thought in modern culture is that something is only true if it can be proven scientifically. In fact, many suppose that science alone is the only source for truth in modern life. This thinking is that if something cannot be subjected to intense scientific experimentation then it is not true. Statements such as, "science is the only source of objective truth" claims to be an objective truth, but it's not a scientific truth.(2) Believers should never allow themselves to be deceived by this sort of philosophical "tomfoolery." How can science be the only source of truth when statements such as this cannot be scientifically proven? In short, the statement is philosophical in nature—it can't be proven by science—therefore it defeats itself.(3)

    The verses quoted above speak of "the beginning" of which God was the cause. Consequently, it is impossible for the universe to be eternal since everything that has a beginning has a cause. In this case, the eternal God is the originator of time and life. Obviously, these Scriptural realities stand in direct opposition to modern teaching on evolution. While the Bible has sufficient basis to reject evolution simply because it is repeatedly repudiated by the Scriptures, even those how disbelieve the Bible should reject evolution since there is abundant scientific evidence to disprove it.

    This reality can be seen by comparing two different types of science, origin science and operation science. "All science is based on the notion of causality, every event has a cause."(4) Since things don't happen willy-nilly, even if we do not know the specific cause of some event, we can surmise what kind of cause it must have been because of the kinds of effects we see today. "The idea that whatever caused some effect in the past will cause the same effect in the present is called the principle of uniformity. All science is based on finding cause using these two principles: causality and uniformity."(5)

    During the Scientific Revolution when men such as Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and William Kelvin were developing the Scientific Method, they made as distinction between primary and secondary causes.(6) "A primary cause was a first cause that explained singularities—events that only happened once and had no natural explanation."(7) In contrast, secondary causes were thought of as being natural causes and laws that govern the way things normally function.(8) Just as it is wrong for supernaturalists to explain ordinary events such as earthquakes, tornados, and hurricanes using primary causes, it is also wrong for the naturalists to explain all singularities by natural causes.(9)

    The result of distinguishing between primary and secondary causes has led to the development of two different types of science: origin science (forensic) and operation science (empirical).(10) Operation science deals with the way things normally operate; it studies things that happen over and over again in a regular and repeated way.(11) "Operation science seeks answers that are testable by repeating the experiment over and over, and falsifiable if the cause does not always yield the same effect."(12) For this reason, operation science seeks out natural (secondary) causes for the events it studies. This repeatability allows the scientist to project the outcome of future experiments.

    Despite naturalistic claims to the contrary, origin science is not just another name used by those who teach creationism. Rather it is an entirely different kind of since. Dr. Norman Geisler, author of When Skeptics Ask, offers the following definition of origin science:

Origin science studies past singularities, rather then present normalities. It looks at how things began, not how they work. It studies things that only happened once, and by their nature, don't happen again. It is a different type of study that requires a difference approach. Rather than being an empirical science like physical or biology, it is more like a forensic science.(13)

The hit television show, CSI, is an example of origin science in action. A person's death is a singular event, meaning it cannot be reproduced through experimentation in a laboratory. Therefore, the detectives and medical examiners on CSI investigate a past singularity (a person's death) by examining the effect and than deducing what could have caused that event.

    Mechanically, origin science works on different principles than operation science. Since past events cannot be presently repeated, origin science utilizes comparisons between cause and effect relationships observable today with the effect being studied. In this fashion, a medical examiner is able to determine if someone died from natural causes or if some other cause (murder, accident) is responsible for the effect. The bottom line is this: just as operation science recognizes that some events demand intelligent causes, origin science also makes allowances for intelligent causes when the evidence calls for it.(14)

    Herein lies the basic scientific argument against Evolution, namely it has taken the wrong approach. Evolutionists have applied the principles of operation since to the study of origins. Consequently, they are seeking regular and repeated causes for an event (creation) that occurred only once. Naturalists have endeavored to use the operations that are presently observable to explain how the world got here in the first place. However, in order to properly understand origins, we must use origin science, not operation science.

Next week we will consider the evidence for intelligent primary causes.

Endnotes

1. Charles Darwin. On the Origin of the Species. (London: John Murray, 1859).
   
2. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Book, 2004), 127.
   
3. Ibid., 127.
   
4. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book, 1990), 213.
   
5. Ibid., 213.
   
6. Ibid., 213.
   
7. Ibid., 214.
   
8. Ibid., 214.
   
9. Ibid., 214.
   
10. Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 567.
    
11. Geisler. Why Skeptics Ask. 214.
    
12. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 568.
    
13. Ibid., 568.
    
14. Ibid., 568.
    

Calvinism, Arminianism, and Dispensationalism

Watch the videos first before reading my commentary.





Calvinism and Arminianism as described in the above videos are both wrong and typify extreme view points. Theologians would have you think that these are the only options that exist. In reality, the only answer to these theological extremes can be found in rightly dividing the word of truth according to the Pauline model.

Calvinism is a theological superstructure based on the five points, commonly summarized by the acronym TULIP. If one can disprove any of these five points, the entire flower wilts despite some Calvinistic claims to the contrary. In other words, four point Calvinism is also scripturally unsustainable. Works such as The Other Side of Calvinism by Lawrence Vance or The Power of God unto Salvation by Joel Fink have already demonstrated in voluminous detail the interconnectedness and spurious nature of Calvin’s theological framework. Consequently, our goal here is not to write a lengthy dissertation rehashing information that has already been addressed. Rather our purpose is to offer a few key points demonstrating that mid-Acts dispensationalism is the answer to Calvinistic confusion.

• I Timothy 2:4—“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” The express stated will of God is that all men be saved. This stands in direction opposition to Calvinism which teaches a limited atonement for the elect only.


• II Corinthians 4:4—“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” Despite the fact that God’s will is that all men be saved, the reality is that all men will not be saved because some will reject the gospel. This causes a theological problem for the Calvinist who believes that the sovereign will of God can never be thwarted. II Corinthians 4:4 teaches that Satan is actively thwarting the will of God by blinding the minds of the lost. Satan knows that the preaching of the gospel of grace has the capacity to turn on the light of understanding in the minds of the lost, and therefore, he actively works to silence the clear preaching of the cross work of Christ. Furthermore, this verse highlights the true nature of the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. Rather than simply teaching that man cannot save himself, Total Depravity teaches that man is totally unable to respond to gospel on his own and needs the Irresistible Grace of God to regenerate him so that he can believe. This theological double speak stands in direct contradiction to the verse. The preaching of the gospel turns on the light of understanding in the mind of a lost man at which point he is perfectly able to decide for himself whether or not he is going to believe.


• Matthew 20:28—“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” At face value, this verse as well as Mark 10:45, seem to be teaching a Limited Atonement. This is a prime example of why the word of God needs to be rightly divided. Historically, as of Matthew 20:28, according to all the information that God had progressively revealed up to this point in history, the atonement was limited to Israel first and any gentile who would identify himself with Israel. John 1:11 states, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Matthew 1:21 reads, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Moreover, in Matthew 15:24, Christ states, “. . . I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” According to the Apostle Paul, in “time past” the gentiles were, “strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”(1) Moreover, Paul clearly states that during his earthly ministry, “. . . Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.”(2) Consequently, during Christ’s earthly ministry, He came to atone for the sins of his people (Israel) as well as any gentile who associated himself with God’s nation. Therefore, in “time past,” the atonement was limited.


• I Timothy 2:5-7—“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” Paul in I Timothy Two teaches the exact opposite of what Christ taught in the upper room in Matthew 20:28. Notice that Paul says that Jesus Christ gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. In other words, when the time was right in the outworking of God’s plan, further information about what Christ accomplished at the cross was made known and revealed to humanity. Verse seven confirms that Paul was made a preacher and an Apostle of this due time message. As a result, in Paul’s epistles the atonement is revealed to be unlimited.


• Romans 3:22—“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.” According to Paul, salvation is being offered today “unto all” people. In other words, the atonement is unlimited in its potential application; Christ offered his life’s blood for the sins of all of humanity. However, the actual application of the righteousness of God is only “upon all them that believe.” That is to say, the only requirement to have the righteousness of God imputed to your account is to believe that Christ died, was buried, and rose again as the only complete payment for your sins. Christ did not just die to pay for the sins of the elect as Calvinism teaches with its Limited Atonement doctrine. Rather, Christ shed his blood to pay for the sins of all humanity. However, not everyone is going to chose to believe.


• Ephesians 1:4—“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” When a Calvinist reads this verse, they insert the word “to be” before the phrase “in him” which results in the following reading, “According as he hath chosen us to be in him before the foundation of the world.” This misreading of the passage greatly alters its meaning. We are not chosen or predestinated for anything until we by faith chose to get into Jesus Christ, i.e. we are chosen in him. In other words, God chose Jesus Christ(3) before the foundation of world, and we are chosen also because we by faith have been placed into Jesus Christ. If I board a plane in Michigan this afternoon heading for Florida the destination of that plane is predetermined, baring complications or disaster. However, no one forces me to board the plane. The choice to board or not board is left to my own volition (free will). So, it is with salvation. We are not forced on to the plane or into Christ against our will. Rather, when we willing believe the gospel the Holy Sprit baptizes and seals us in Jesus Christ. Then once placed into living union with the head of the body of Christ, we are chosen, elected, and predestinate to a glorious future in him.

Therefore, we see that the doctrine of Calvinism is completely inconsistent with the scriputures.

Endnoes
1) Ephesians 2:11-12
2) Romans 15:8
3) Isaiah 42:1

The Anatomy of Heresy, Complete Essay

All of the postings form the past three weeks on the issue of Heresy have been combined and edited to read as a single essay. Study with us a we explore Heresy as one of the works of the flesh in Galatians 5.

Please click on the picture to the left for access to this file in PDF format.

If you are finding these studies beneficial please let us know. Moreover, feel free to share this essay with those who might find it interesting.