December 16, 2009

Responses to: Evolution is Not the Problem. Darwinism is the Problem

Benjamin Wiker responds to reader letters.

The number of responses to my “Evolution is Not the Problem. Darwinism is the Problem” is not surprising given that evolution is a hot-button topic. I thank all of you for taking the time to write. Allow me to focus on the most important question asked.

A reader writes, “Dr. Wiker makes a case claiming the Darwinism, not evolution is the problem. He rightly makes a distinction between the two. However, whether a person agrees with him or not depends on what he means by evolution.”

So what do I mean by evolution? Although it will satisfy no one, I am going to say what I think is the only honest answer, the answer that every honest scientist should now give. “I don’t know. Ask me in another fifty years.”

Why is not answering, the best answer? Because we can only figure out what evolution really is, what really happened, once we discard the materialist, reductionist blinders that have almost exclusively guided evolutionary research since Darwin. This reductionist view has defined what counts as evidence, how evolutionary problems are to be framed, and what explanations are to be allowed. If, for example, we are convinced that evolution must have happened entirely by random variations in DNA, and that all species must have been descended, through variations, from remote common ancestors, then the only answers we look for are answers that fit that view.

What would happen if we suddenly decided to look for all possible evidence that pointed to the contrary? That led us to search out the limits of random variations of DNA? That led us to search for evidence against common descent? Or, hitting closer to home, that led us to examine in greater detail the enormous differences between human beings and chimpanzees? What if we looked at the fossil record from the point of view of its discontinuities rather than its continuities? What if we looked at all the evidence against the random chemical production of the earliest cells?

Note that I am not saying that science should look for “miracles,” direct interventions by God into nature. It need only question the basic assumptions of the materialist.

So what will it look like? I don’t know for sure, but I think the result would be a whole lot of new evidence that Darwinism was a woefully inadequate view of evolution, and that biological evolution is, like biology itself, far, far more complex and wonderful than Darwin, or any like-minded materialist, reductionist evolutionary theorist has allowed. So wonderful indeed, that the existence of God will be the only rational conclusion.

I strongly agree with Benjamin Wiker that “nature, as a creation of the profound wisdom of God, is much more magnificent and mysterious than our human attempts to grasp it.” The same thing is true in my field of physics . . . as we struggle with things like the wave-particle duality of subatomic particles, we are directed toward a similar conclusion. But the theories of physics are reproducible, predictable, and falsifiable. By contrast, the Theory of Evolution is neither reproducible, predictable, nor falsifiable. When Dr. Wiker states that the problem is Darwinism, he is only partly correct. There are problems throughout the theory of evolution. What troubles me most about Dr. Wiker’s piece is that it appears to succumb to the “dangerous tendency” Marcellus Kik cautioned about 40 years ago: to interpret scripture “in a manner so as to satisfy the ‘scientific mind.’”[i] Maybe I am misunderstanding . . . but the article appears to reject Darwinism yet accept everything else about the theory of evolution. This merely replaces one improvable mechanism for evolution with another; it merely substitutes the deliberate acts of a loving, personal Judeo-Christian God for the impersonal atheist-naturalistic mechanism of Natural Selection. Both are still “God of the Gaps” arguments – just with different “gods.” And if everything about evolution is true except Darwinism . . . does this mean the Judeo-Christian God tinkers with DNA at every step in the evolutionary process? In the Middle Ages, scientist/theologians believed the invisible hand of God caused every motion of the stars and planets – until Isaac Newton showed that God had ordained a Universal Law of Gravitation. I think later generations will similarly find that God has a more complex plan for lifeforms . . . but mankind just hasn’t understood it yet. I am also troubled that Dr. Wiker distorts the creationist position; and falls back on that old straw man: “God did not create the earth and all its creatures, fully-formed, just six thousand years ago.” I doubt any thoughtful, analytical Christian believes that in the 21st century, and I am surprised that a fellow Christian intellectual would make that claim. There are a variety of old earth creationist positions, and ALL reject this argument. Even 6-Day creationists – who accept 6000 years – reject the balance of the argument, as Jonathan Sarfati’s writings make clear. If one really believes the atheist-evolutionist premise that all creationists are Neanderthals – as this statement seems to imply – one wonders if there is common ground upon which to build a viable “reasonable Christian” position. - Hugh Henry, Ph.D.

What DNA did God use when creating Jesus in Mary's womb? Fully formed DNA or ...? - Joshua McClintock

I read the piece on evolution and Darwinism. The assumption by Dr. Morris is that evolution is a proven fact rather than a theory. I have no scientific background but I read and watch and listen and I don't believe the religion of evolution. CBC (Canadian public radio) used to broadcast a programme called Finkleman"s 45s. Danny Finkleman brought his own 50s and 60s records in, which was enjoyable way to pass a Saturday evening. He was also a bit of a philosopher. His take on evolution was that it was like someone buying a boxed bike, leaving it in the box for a million years or so when lo and behold, whether by lightning strike or some other way, the bike had assembled itself. A fairy tale. Aren't the genetic differences between similar species enough to indicate a unique creation for each one? If apes are ancestors of humans why aren't we witnessing missing links emerging from their habitations? As for the age of the earth I like what I read in one edition of To the Source that time on earth is not the same as time in space. I don't pretend to understand the theory of relativity, just know E=MC2, not what it means, but we're led to believe that travellers to other parts of the universe will not age at the same rate as their earth bound fellows. That would indicate that possibility. We'll see, when and if humans are able to travel far from our solar system. There are many scientific theories which we accept as true but are not proven. Is it true that the ancestors of today's Chinese and North American Natives crossed via an ice bridge during the ice age? Do North American natives share their ancestors with Central and South American original people? I recently heard a theory that those people had the technology to make very large ships which crossed the Pacific to this continent and that there are the remains of one of the ships buried somewhere on the west coast. Would this predate the Egyptian civilization with their wheels and chariots, the pyramids, etc.? As St. Paul said, we see through a glass darkly. There are still many mysteries. If you can throw any light on any of them it would be appreciated. - JN

It seems to me that Mr. Wiker wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be scientific as defined by popular science and he wants to believe in the Christian-style God at the same time. In other words, he allows popular scientists to define the basis of the reasonableness of Christianity. In short, he does not allow his Christianity to be held to any sort of test. He accepts the existence of God and the life of Christ as "true" by definition, not subject to testing or potential falsification, while rejecting the Genesis account as historically falsified - i.e., mythical or allegorical - a moral fable. For me, the following passage from Wiker's essay is the most telling in this regard: The reasonable Christian holds, first of all, that science cannot contradict the faith because he assumes that the Creator God and the Redeemer God are one and the same God. He differs markedly in this from both the Christian fideist and the rationalist Christian. The fideist is often driven to deny science that seems to contradict the faith; the rationalist to deny every aspect of faith that seems to contradict science. The reasonable Christian does not allow that a contradiction is possible on either side. He knows from the history of science itself that science, including evolutionary science, is a merely human activity, and that despite its pretensions, scientists are often wandering in confusion, hobbled by bad theories, and misled by their very victories into assuming that they are omniscient. He knows that nature, as a creation of the profound wisdom of God, is much more magnificent and mysterious than our human attempts to grasp it, and so assumes that evolution must be something far grander than Darwin made it out to be, something so marvelous that, if we fully understood it, it would appear miraculous-a manifestation of the glory and wisdom of the Creator. Darwinism is too small for him as a theory of evolution because nature is too big for Darwinism to be true. This argument is most interesting because it points out that scientists are often confused and come up with bad theories. Yet, Wiker seems convinced that the basic ideas of modern evolutionary scientists are obviously correct? - just not grand or big enough to express the magnificence, miraculous, and even the Supernatural that must be there behind it all? Wiker knows that this aspect, a God, must be there somehow - - not based on evidence, but based on his own personal blind faith that some form of a Christian-style God simply must exist. He does not allow that any contradictions with this idea are "even possible". This particular argument as to the impossibility of any contradiction is itself inherently anti-science. (click here to read the rest of this letter) - Sean Pitman, M.D.

Dear To the Source, I'm not sure how I got on your e-mail list, but now is the time to take me off. Your argument that advocates a godly atheism isn't just bad science. It's bad logic. Your distinction between Darwinism and evolution is a manufactured distinction, not an actual one. It would only be valid if evolution were, in fact, a demonstrable scientific fact. Evolution (not Darwinism) fails on the basis of science. Your failure to recognize the distinction between the actual scientific data--fossil, genetic, geologic, etc.--and the evolutionary spin put on that data to arrive at evolutionary conclusions, makes it evident you offer no credible argument. I've not found your e-mails all that valuable in the past. Now that you have so clearly demonstrated a confusion about what that actual facts are, I realize that your e-mails really don't warrant a place in my inbox. Thank you for your time and consideration. - L. Jay Reinke Williston, ND

Dr. Wiker makes a case claiming the Darwinism, not evolution is the problem. He rightly makes a distinction between the two. However, whether a person agrees with him or not depends on what he means by evolution. It seems from his article that he uses the term evolution to mean common descent from the original life form up to humans. If that is the case, I strongly disagree with him. He claims there is great evidence for this, mentioning "the evidence from the great age of the earth to the fossils". According to Dr. WIker, this means then that "clearly that God did not create the earth and all its creatures, fully-formed, just six thousand years ago." He then goes on to accuse those who take a literal interpretation of Genesis of being fideists. Fideism is the view that religious faith is separate from reason and cannot be reconciled with it. I strongly reject this accusation, even though I am a believer in the literal interpretation of Genesis and in the world-wide flood. However, I do NOT believe that faith is separate from reason. There are times of course when God tells us to do something or believe a promise that doesn't seem rational, but this is the exception rather than the rule. I would bet that Mr. Wiker also believes in miracles - for instance, the birth of the Savior and the resurrection of the Messiah, so I guess we are both fideists. There is another possibility here. Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis simply believe that God, as the Creator and eye-witness of creation events, knows what happened far better than we do. We believe that true science will support this. I'm surprised he would mention the fossil record as supporting evolution because it clearly does not support it. The Cambrian Explosion is the clearest record of this. The lack of intermediate forms forced Gould to come up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium. The fossil record is easily explained by the Genesis flood. This idea of the earth being old is a very recent interpretation of the Bible. Recently, geologists are backing away from Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism that says "The present is the key to the past" and embracing catastrophism more and more as the evidence piles up. They still hold to long ages and claim that in between the catastrophes, much time passed, in spite of the fact that little erosion of the rocks is seen. Here is a link that showing that even evolutionists are challenging uniformitarianism: http://creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091202a The old age of the earth also is an interpretation of the facts that we observe around us. There is evidence supporting this view, but there is also a lot of evidence supporting the young earth position. Young earth PhD scientists are not fideists. They believe the Bible and science fit together in a different way than the old earth creationists do. YEC's believe the fault lies with a faulty interpretation of the scientific data while old earth scientists want to tweak the Bible to match their interpretation of the history of the earth and universe. Anyway, I resent the label of "Fideist" and wanted to respond to that. - Jim M.