The Dawn Treader

Part 1 of 4

Me: "Do you think God relied solely on naturalistic mechanisms (i.e. no miracles) to create all life forms including man?"

Steve: To start, it might help for me to clarify my position from the outset. Jeff, you and I are friends, who at one point attended the same church. Though we have respectfully disagreed with one another on certain questions, I think that we mostly agree on fundamental issues.

I am a believer in reformed Christianity, but I am not a Creationist (capital-C, this probably where we agree), which is a philosophy associated with a very specific, Biblically-literal, understanding of what happened at the beginning of the universe, the earth, life, and specifically humans. Rather, I am a creationist- who believes in a personal God/Creator who made the natural processes that we see as nature. This God is also One who is greatly concerned with this creation, particularly humans, and intervenes at Will in both natural and supernatural ways.

I will also say that I am not a strict adherent to Intelligent Design, inasmuch as that philosophy constrains one to believe that supernatural intervention is required to explain the origins of species and the advent of the human genome (after, that is, the initial creation was finished).

If one believes in a personal God, then logically, Humanity must have a supernatural component- the soul which communes with God. I believe in intelligent design of the processes which we observe in nature, and evolution as the result of what happened (the effect, not necessarily the cause-- more on that later). However, even from a naturalistic point of view, the beginning (creation) of matter/energy is  a "miracle" because it violates current natural laws.

What I am trying to say is that, if one believes in God- as many scientists do, by the way- then one has to accept that there is some supernatural intersection between God and man. But honestly, beyond what I have just mentioned, I just cannot know exactly what/where that is and just how God built the species and how evolution occurred.   Yes, Darwinian gradualism is wholly insufficient to explain what we observe in the genetic and archaeological "records", but that in itself does not prove that some (as yet not fully understood) natural processes are not responsible. Neither, however, has the atheistic naturalist proven his case for origins.

So to rephrase your question, did God use natural or non-naturalistic mechanisms to create man? My answer is “Yes.” Not because I am trying to waffle, but because I am comfortable in my faith and in my scientific career with not knowing everything- sometimes one just has to live with a certain amount of mystery. When creation was finished, it was fully potent to achieve the Will of its Creator… and that is both natural and supernatural. I trust God with the information that has been withheld from me and look forward to the endless exciting discoveries to be had in a career studying God’s nature.   

Part 2 of 4

Me: "Do you think the advancement of knowledge in genetics and molecular biology over the past thirty years has strengthened the case for naturalistic evolution, or weakened it?"

Steve's response:

Well, it certainly has become way more complicated, even in the last ten years. What we used to think of as junk: repetitive DNA, micro-RNAs, methylation and acetylation of chromatin and more… are becoming much more important to what makes up the character of a cell than ever thought possible. It seems that the human genome contains fewer genes than we thought, but there are blindingly complicated layers of cellular regulatory pathways.

ID'ers would understandably claim that this strengthens their case, because it increases a necessary timeline and offspring number that are already stretched pretty thin in a gradualistic Evolutionary scheme.

Evolutionists would answer the ID argument with an assertion that there was plenty of time- especially given certain known and unknown disequilibrium mechanisms. Also, what has become more complicated and elegant are the adaptive mechanisms that exist in cells. One thing I have learned in cancer biology is that there are many hidden tools that the cancer cells use to adapt quickly to a very hostile environment.

These points would argue for either ID or naturalism, because it is both more complicated and more able to adapt than we knew. The fact that we know a lot less than we thought does not add much to this debate, does it?

Regarding genomics or genetic homologies, they are what they are. [my note: Homologous means having the same morphology and linear sequence of gene loci as another chromosome. Morphology is the branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of organisms without consideration of function.   In other words, Steve is talking about genetic sequence similarities between species]  It is useful in science to know that they are there, and useful to discover mutational mechanisms.  We are getting really good at looking at what is there and how it works.  That is what I think is important in science- studying the mechanisms, looking at what we have in front of us.  If we cannot observe something or devise a testable theory on some mechanism, it is of no value for the time being."

Me:  "Kansas has recently changed its science standards.  They now allow public school teachers, at their own discretion, to talk about criticisms to Darwinian macro-evolution.  The standards do not, btw, advocate teaching intelligent design as has been widely mis-reported in the MSM.   In your opinion, is discussing criticisms to Darwin's theory a set back for science in Kansas?"

Steve:  "Of course not. This is, on its face, a very measured and reasonable approach. The scientific community should welcome critical scientific and logical examination. Anyone who is uncomfortable with this is part of the problem, not the solution."

Me: "In your opinion, will a student coming from a Kansas public school be behind students coming from other parts of the country in terms of studying biology at a college level?"

Steve:  "That remains to be seen from an outcome point of view, but this resolution will not contribute to any decline. Everybody has to pass the same standardized tests."

Me:  "In your opinion, will a student coming from a Kansas public school who is interested in pursuing a degree in biology suffer in any way?"

Steve:  "While this is possible, I doubt it.  Surely,  admissions officers will look at each candidate individually.  However, there will probably be a bias against anyone who expresses any skepticism of Darwinism. I have heard some accounts in the past of medical schools using pro-choice as an undocumented means test for admission in personal interviews. [my note: I know of one case where this happened]"

Part 3 of 4

Me: Does evolutionary theory play a serious role in cancer research?   

Steve: Okay, so here is where I would get in trouble with my colleagues.

First let me point you to a news magazine for scientists that I highly recommend to my colleagues and any “Scientific American” reader: the-scientist.com . Though the publishers serve the mainline scientist market, they featured a provocative editorial by a grand old master chemist, Phillip S. Skell (www.the-scientist.com/2005/08/29/10/1) which asserts that Darwin’s theory is not useful for day-to-day research design and progress. The discussion in response to this (www.the-scientist.com/2005/9/26/8/1) was sharp and considerable. I agree with Dr. Skell and feel that he makes this case better than I do, but I’ll try.

The essential disagreement is whether homology = Evolution. In other words, does the fact that there are similarities between species mean that Evolution must have produced it? While it is reasonable, it is clearly begging the question to say so. The important thing is that, genetically and functionally, species are in fact similar in many ways. This is very useful in research. I would love to give examples, but no one would dispute this.

Evolution is a paradigm- a framework upon which one can hang observations in a way that makes sense- it is not a testable theory. We use homology to design experiments, but Evolution is an explanation for those homologies. It is not something that we can refer to when designing experiments.

Me: So you are saying that evolutionary theory is not falsifiable?

Steve: Yes, that is the crux of my point.  I respectfully disagree with those who say that Evolution is a theory like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.  Einstein himself, along with many who followed, suggested experiments which would prove it wrong- falsify it. Such experiments simply cannot exist for Evolution. Accordingly, any theory that cannot be falsified is not a scientific theory.

While Evolution is an elegant idea and should be learned by all who study biology, I would argue that it is a paradigm not a theory.

Me:  Why do you capitalize Evolution?

Steve: It is my own indulgence, because I believe that vocabulary should be as precise and specific as possible to enable clarity of understanding. The word “evolution” predates the theory. I prefer to differentiate generic evolution (observed changes over some range of reference) from the famous idea proffered by Charles Darwin which seeks to explain the cause of what we now observe. Because it refers to a specific set of ideas, I think that Evolution should be capitalized. Unfortunately, micro-evolution (or adaptation) is also lumped into the term “evolution.” Evolutionists claim that this is the same process, but that is again begging the axiom as the conclusion and is simply not intellectually honest. The acquisition of drug resistance by a microbe is not the same as the Origin of Species.

Part 4 of 4

Me: "What about irreducible complexity?  Does Behe raise a valid challenge to naturalistic gradualism, or do his ideas amount to creationism warmed over?"

Steve: ID is certainly an interesting idea, especially for a believer. Perhaps the best case for it is this now famous peer-reviewed paper by Stephen C. Meyer. There is a nice discussion of this debate with lots of links on Wikipedia.  I think that most of the classic Irreducible Complexity (IC) examples have been answered by Evolutionists to some degree, so I'll leave the readers to look into this themselves through the above links.

The logical structure of IC is inherently weak. It basically says, "there are biological systems so complex that we cannot imagine how evolution could have produced it." It reminds me of the aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But honestly, from an experimental point of view, Intelligent Design is pretty useless. As a paradigm, it is a box that everything fits into... and talk about not falsifiable. But, it is a competing paradigm, and Evolution (another big box) needs some competition.

Let me present an observation that is the best evidence I have seen supporting Evolution. Orangutans, chimps and gorillas have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23. Human chromosome #2 looks like a fusion of two of the primate chromosomes- a simple evolutionary step. While future sequencing studies must confirm this, in situ hybridization studies have shown that there is an extra vestigial centromere region where one would expect if there had been a fusion. More amazingly, there is also a telomere sequence (found only at the ends of chromosomes) inside chromosome 2 at the junction of this fusion. As someone who studies telomeres, this is extremely odd and not found in any other chromosome to my knowledge. In my opinion, this looks like a messy, Evolution-like "footprint", not a neat Intelligently Designed one. Biology in general is "messy" like this. While not proof, this does fit the Evolution paradigm/theory better.

So, where does that leave us?

While I am sympathetic to the ID folks, I am inclined to think that God created natural processes for the workings of nature. Steps in speciation (development of a new species) and certainly the origins of life are just too large to observe, so any theory on speciation becomes ideological extrapolation.

On the other hand, I believe the reason there is such sympathy to the ID crowd is not so much the science, but the attitudes of Evolutionists. It is as if they are trying to teach, "We have proven that there is no God." It is this disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty that many people- not just evangelicals- are having a gut reaction to. What is important is the scientific method, so it is bothersome when scientists (human, like everybody else I guess) become ideologues. Again, I feel it is much more interesting and useful to observe what we can and apply it to further study and progress for mankind.

As a friendly admonition to my Christian-world-view friends, let me end with this: be careful that CWV does not resemble an us-versus-them attitude. I ask you, how can we evangelize people who feel they must defend themselves from us? The Great Commission is not a call to go and fight non-believers, but rather to go and love them into a saving relationship with Christ.

So how do we deal with atheists who use a government monopoly on public education to indoctrinate our children? Let me suggest that the problem isn't so much what they are teaching, but the educational system itself. Realize that it was our forefathers who came up with the idea in the early 19th century to use tax dollars (other peoples money) to set up a coercive educational system to indoctrinate children. Regardless of whether we agree with such a system, why are we surprised when this is now used against us? Here is a solution: use our money to build public education schools (i.e. free) to teach children at a higher level than government schools (not very hard) to give those children an advantage in higher education, so they will become our leaders and transform society. Let's love people into the Kingdom, not try to force them.