On Solid Ground: Evolution versus Intelligent Design

President Bush sent reporters into a tizzy this week by saying that he thought schools ought to teach both evolution and intelligent design. Students ought to hear both theories, he said, so they “can understand what the debate is about.”

Well, the usual critics jumped all over the president, but he’s absolutely right. Considering all competing theories was once the very definition of academic freedom. But today, the illiberal forces of secularism want to stifle any challenges to Darwin—even though Darwin is proving to be eminently challengeable.

Take biochemist Michael Behe’s argument. He says that the cell is irreducibly complex. All the parts have to work at once, so it could not have evolved. No one has been able to successfully challenge Behe’s argument.

In fact, the scientific case for intelligent design is so strong that, as BreakPoint listeners have heard me say, even Antony Flew, once the world’s leading philosopher of atheism, has renounced his life-long beliefs and has become, as he puts it, a deist. He now believes an intelligent designer designed the universe, though he says he cannot know God yet.

I was in Oxford last week, speaking at the C. S. Lewis Summer Institute, and had a chance to visit with Flew. He told a crowd that, as a professional philosopher, he had used all the tools of his trade to arrive at what he believed were intellectually defensible suppositions supporting atheism. But the intelligent design movement shook those presuppositions. He said, however, on philosophical grounds that he could not prove the existence of the God of the Bible.

In the question period, I walked to the microphone and told him as nicely as I could that he had put himself in an impossible box. He could prove theism was the only philosophically sustainable position, but he could not prove who God was. I said, “If you could prove who God was, you could not love God—which is the principle object of life.”

I admitted that I had once gotten myself into the same position. I had studied biblical worldview for years and believed that I could prove beyond a doubt that the biblical worldview is the only one that is rational, the only one that conforms to the truth of the way the world is made. But that led to a spiritual crisis of sorts, when one morning in my quiet time I realized that while I could prove all of this, I could not prove who God was. I began to worry: When this life was over, would I really meet Him?

Some weeks later, as I describe in my new book The Good Life, it hit me that if I could prove God, I could not know Him. The reason is that, just as He tells us, He wants us to come like little children with faith. If you could resolve all intellectual doubts, there would be no need for faith. You would then know God the same way that you know the tree in the garden outside your home. You would look at it, know it is there, and that’s it, as Thomas Aquinas once said.

Faith is necessary because without it you cannot love God. So as I said to Dr. Flew, if you could prove God, you couldn’t love Him, which is His whole purpose in creating you. He later told me that I have raised a very provocative point that he would have to give some thought to.

So, I hope you will pray for Antony Flew—a gentle and courageous man who appears to be seeking God. And we should remember that if this brilliant man can be persuaded out of his atheism by intelligent design, anyone can see it. Those of us contending for the intelligent design point of view, which now includes among our ranks the president of the United States, I’m happy to say, are on increasingly solid ground.

For the time being, I would like an explanation as to why science has not produced, or observed a case (other than in fossil and bone records) where an ape was mistaken for a human or vice versa.

Because there is no reason according to evolutionary theory that we should; the theory makes no such guarantee, and in fact, gives more reason that they should be extinct that not, as any such survivors would have to compete within the same niche as modern humans. They are either extinct from competition with humans or were genetically close enough to humans to meld into part of our species. Our closest living relative is the chimpanzee, which, in a strict genetic sense, is almost the same species as a human, (though certainly not in any intellectual or spiritual sense).

I've answered enough of your questions, if you want more (and better) answers get yourself a few good science textbooks. How about answering my question - what do you think about any one (or more or all) of the points I expressed about the Bible in Post #128? I wouldn't bring it up, but since you've declared that the Bible is the logical funnel for every thought you express, it certainly is central to the issue.

Our closest living relative is the chimpanzee, which, in a strict genetic sense, is almost the same species as a human, (though certainly not in any intellectual or spiritual sense).

Does it strike you as inconsistent with evolutionary thinking that the chimpanzee can have so much genetic similitude with humans, yet be so obviously distinct? All the talk about evolutionary trees and branches would be much more scientifically sound if there were but some documented (in human language!) cases of those moments where the diverging species was observed.

As far as I know, most species of apes and humans are hearty enough and plentiful enough in population that we ought to see at least one or two examples where the distinction between the two has been difficult. That there is no such case does not prove evolution false, but it certainly is one worth raising for consideration.

As it is, comparative morphology makes for an easy way to support one's fundamental assumptions while sounding scientific at the same time. Hence the story of life is told in any number of ways among evolutionists, just as the story of creation is told in any number of ways by would-be theologians. In either case, science in the strict sense has been abandoned for conjecture, both reasonable and unreasonable.

All the talk about evolutionary trees and branches would be much more scientifically sound if there were but some documented (in human language!) cases of those moments where the diverging species was observed.

There are many examples of this. Some are listed here .

Discrete taxonomy in speciation is also an issue that has already been well addressed. read
Chimps are genetically similar to humans, but what you're suggesting would probably require them to be similar enough to (possibly) interbreed with humans; they are not that similar (separated by at least 6 million years of evolution).

Everything else you wrote makes me wonder if you've read the things I've written.

This isn't a research site. It's a discussion site. If you're not willing to answer any questions, then I've spent enough time here.

There are many examples of this. Some are listed here.

Those examples hardly demonstrate the magnitude of speciation necessary to explain the wider diversity of biological entities. Again, one would expect to find at least one or two living examples where a human might be confused for an ape. As far as I know, no such case has ever been documented. It's called absence of evidence.

Discrete taxonomy in speciation is also an issue that has already been well addressed.

I consider arguments from extinction also to be absence of evidence. It's a "maybe," not a "certainly so," and as such qualifies to be taught as some form of archaeological history and philosophy, not science in the strict sense.

And then there's the whole matter of evidence in general. Evolutionists are blythe in announcing the "huge amounts of evidence" to support their view, but science consists of more than mountains of evidence (the interpretation of which is subject to inestimable subjectivity). Testing, direct observation, repeatability, exploration, and the like must also be involved.

Looking at a static record and attempting to construct history therefrom is no more qualified to be called "science" than preaching the wrath of an Almighty God in a physics class is qualified to be called the proper application of theology. Science and theology are about, and engaged in, dynamic processes, the study of which leaves evolutionism in the dust as far as both truth and value are concerned.

Testing, direct observation, repeatability, exploration, and the like must also be involved.

All 4 of these things are done with evolutionary biology, as I have already explained. You just refuse to see it or are unable to understand it. The scientific community, well-trained in these matters, is well aware of the implications and necessity of evidence and draws their conclusions accordingly.

You have already admitted that your religious views trump any scientific explanation in your mind, so I am still inclined to ask about this, as I am curious as to how your draw your conclusions. I'd be satisfied (for now) with an honest attempt at an answer to any of the following, rephrased as direct questions where necessary:

Many parts of the Bible are written in parables, including many of Jesus' most famous preachings. The Creation story does not anywhere explicitly set itself aside as an exception to this possibility. Why is it not possible that the account in Genesis is a parable containing the message of God's awesome creative power?
The Bible's original audience had no conception of modern science, so the story was written at a level simple people in a simple time could understand. The message of creation is timeless, but why would you expect a specific account of events to an ancient audience to apply as a restriction to knowledge based on modern scientific inquiry?
As I pointed out before, many parts of the Bible are not specifically internally consistant. Matthew, Mark and Luke give different accounts of the identity (and genders) of the 3 people to which Peter denied Christ. (You never addressed this point) Matthew and Luke give two very different geneologies of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus. If the meaning of the Bible is always 100% literal history, how do you reconcile these internal contradictions?
Some statements in the Bible are completely absurd when taken too literally. Do you really believe that the descendants of Abraham during David's time were literally as numerous as all the grains of sand on the seashore? How many trillions of people would this be?
Some parts of the Bible seem to even support an evolutionary origin of man:
Ecclesiastes 3:18
I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals."
Why is not possible to interpret statements such as this as support of our evolutionary origin, especially when Genesis 1 is phrased in such a non-specific form?
Most creationists interpret Genesis super-literally, in contrast to scientific knowledge, whereas the Book of Revelation, are interpreted and distorted to a great extent to fit the belief that we are now living in the end times. The meaning of "Babylon", for instance, is commonly reinterpreted to mean the United States or another powerful nation. If Revelation can be interpreted this loosely by fundamentalists, why can't Genesis accomodate scientific knowledge about human evolutionary origins?

All 4 of these things are done with evolutionary biology, as I have already explained. You just refuse to see it or are unable to understand it.

I have no where stated that evolutionary biology in no way engages in "direct observation, repeatability, exploration, and the like." But I am well aware that the results in no way merit the conclusion that all biological life is derivitive of a common ancestor. When science does what it is supposed to do, it's results will coincide with the basic phenomenological events cited in biblical texts.

You have already admitted that your religious views trump any scientific explanation in your mind . . .

The biblical texts and my religious views are not the same thing in essence. They are not coterminous. My religious views are to be subject to the texts as a whole, and the Author of those texts. It is the texts and their Author that make clear there would be no science without the creative act and ongoing involvement of the Creator. As far as I can tell, you neither recognize those texts as being authored by the Creator, nor are you willing to submit your own reason to either the texts or their Author.

The very first sentence of the biblical texts, for you, must be subject to your experience and reason first, and from there you judge what kind of literature you think it might be. I am not given to do such a thing. As long as you are, it is best that you be left to your own authority. Besides, it makes you sound more wise and educated.

The Bible's original audience had no conception of modern science . . .

The original audience for the biblical texts is all people throughout all generations. Your assertion that it was "dumbed down" for an unscientific bunch of nimrods is simplistic on the face of it. One would think, if the Creator of all things visible and invible desired to communicate with the crown of His creation, He would do so in human language, and in a manner that spells out both convincingly and plainly where we came from, where we are going, and why.

Your answer does not provide the requested detail on just what is what.

Let me repeat the slide I linked earlier. It illustrates the relative dating principles in use and considered valid since the late 18th century forward to the present.

A certain fossil is found in the sediment layer marked A on the slide above and only that layer. Another fossil is unique to the layer marked D. Another yet is found only in K.

Science would say "The thing in A lived before the thing in D which lived before the thing in K" is a valid chronology. Does Fester agree?

This is only relative dating, not absolute dating, but relative dating will establish a fossil series if you can recognize layers from one location to the next.

Science would say "The thing in A lived before the thing in D which lived before the thing in K" is a valid chronology. Does Fester agree?

First of all I must be drinking too much ADK beer, because I cannot locate "A" in the picture, or "D", or "K." Secondly, if the record were layed down over a long period of time as most evolutionists believe, then it is reasonable to believe the fossils in lower beds represent life forms that preceded those above. But the interpretation of the fossil record entails more than location.

Assumptions about which spiecies are related in history must be made. With evolutionists it is a given from their point of view that the more complex forms are derived from the less complex; that common morphology necessitates common ancestry. I do not think it must be so. Either way, we're dealing with interpretations of the past that are not so clear as observations in the present.

On a tangential note, the Creator does not suspend what we understand to be natural laws unless or until it suits the overall purpose of history. The biblical texts attest to the fact that it is neither His desire nor nature to be intrusive, but rather subtle, in dealing with His creation. In fact, the biblical texts go so far as to say the Creator's power is made perfect in weakness.

First of all I must be drinking too much ADK beer, because I cannot locate "A" in the picture, or "D", or "K."

Convenient. Trust me on something, A would look like the "lowest" layer in the picture when the tilting of strata has been allowed for. E is over A and K is over E. A is the only one which might be hard to find for the non-optically challenged. It's in the southwest corner.

Secondly, if the record were layed down over a long period of time as most evolutionists believe, then it is reasonable to believe the fossils in lower beds represent life forms that preceded those above.

You don't seem very sure that the assumption is reasonable. Creationists of the late 18th century had no problem with that one. In fact, speeding up the process of laying down the layers won't get them in the wrong order. Still Fester seems incredibly vague here.

I am not asking Fester Dumbbleep what evolutionists assume. I am asking Fester what Fester accepts. Hello? Is A older than D which is older than K?

But the interpretation of the fossil record entails more than location.

It entails the fossils and their locations, yes.

Assumptions about which spiecies are related in history must be made.

One does not have to assume the result. Science did not start out assuming the results it has today. It only assumed that straightforward Occam's Razor reasoning from evidence was allowable and would tend to generate results which could be repeatedly tested against new data. That kind of process led to Darwin's work in the 1850s and its validation against all kinds of new evidence since. Also, progress in geology has only confirmed and not at all undermined the assumptions underlying the relative dating principles of Sedgewick and Lyell.

With evolutionists it is a given from their point of view that the more complex forms are derived from the less complex; that common morphology necessitates common ancestry. I do not think it must be so. Either way, we're dealing with interpretations of the past that are not so clear as observations in the present.

Mumble mumble mumble. Let me run another statement past you for a yes or no.

Fester does not accept even the basic first principles of geology, the foundations of all later work, and does not have the integrity to admit it.

Comments invited.

This only looks to me like Fester should probably be a man, accept, and somehow deal with the existence of fossil series rather than pretend they are artifacts of someone's assumptions.

I am simply pointing out that there are various creation stories. The usual responses to my posts may be paraphrased as "my creation story is better than your creation story."

Do you think that evolutionary theory is just another creation "story"?

A long time ago there was a hot soup on the earth. One magical day some of the dirt in the soup became alive! It grew and grew and grew until one day it turned into a fish! Then it turned into a dinosaur! Then it turned into a bird! Then it turned into a monkey! Then it turned into a man! Man was too stupid for a long time to know where he came from. Then one day a great man took a voyage on a ship and came to an island. On the island were many different animals. The man imagined how these animals could have come to be and wrote a book. Others read his book and said "How wonderful this book is! Let us teach it in our schools to our children. And that, my children, is how we came to be.

Do you think that evolutionary theory is just another creation "story"?
No.

Well why not? It's no different than any of the ones you recounted. Here it is again in case you missed it:

What makes your story superior to mine?

Okay. I located the layers to which you are referring in the picture. Thanks for your help. It is reasonable to assume that "A" preceded "D" which preceded "K" as the strata were laid down. Is this picture representative of a particular location on the planet?

Whether it is or is not, I generally accept the geological principle that lower strata preceded higher strata in history, although there have been cases where the strata are, for some reason, twisted or reversed. Sedgewick and Lyell, as far as I know, were more interested in geology than in the interpretation of the fossil record. Their understanding of physical laws was, for their day and age, probably on the mark.

But if they launch into the assertion that the geological record is the product of "billions of years of history," then they have exceeded the bounds of what pure science can offer. They have indulged reasonable conjecture at the expense of direct observation and recorded (i.e. in human language) history. As I understand it, Lyell simply asserted as much, and science never questioned his assertion.

Obviously there may have been strata prior to the world-wide deulge referenced by the biblical texts (which in turn denote the eyewitness testimony of Noah). The world-wide deluge would create an environment in which massive sedimentary depositions could be created, wherein a massive deposition of life forms could also be placed, and whereby both old and new stratification could be effected and created.

At the same time, other catastrophic phenomenon could intoduce the inconsistences often observed in the geologic record, along with climactic conditions more harsh than present during civilizations that preceded the world-wide deluge. This is why some fossils denote creatures of larger-than-normal size by today's stanbdards. This may also account for the fact that certain individuals prior to the deluge had exceedingly long life spans.

Well, you have your own reason and senses to which you bow as the ultimate authority. I rely upon the biblical texts and their Author as representative of the truth regarding the origins, history, and destination of the universe.

The difference between us could not be more stark, nevertheless it is incumbent upon me to love and respect you as a fellow human being. I am woefully short on both accounts. You be the man, and trust yourself. I'll be the child, and trust my Maker.

Most places would not have the volcanic intrusions. Some warping and faulting is normal. Lots of layers is extremely common.

I think we have arrived at a point where it is unreasonable to say that evolutionists order fossils based on fossil shape alone and not the age of the fossils. If you have a basis for this statement, it is thus far lacking on this thread. At any rate, you have not dealt with the material posted in 120 at all, even on the single point you have pretended to address.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.