Ronnie W. Rogers, “Taking every thought captive…”

Biologist Jonathan Wells elucidates the critical distinction between evolution and Darwinism.  He notes, “Evolution means change over time”¹ and of course no one doubts that.  “But Charles Darwin claimed far more than any of these things.  In The Origin of Species he set out to explain the origin of not just one or a few species, but all species after the first—in short, all the diversity of life on Earth.  The correct word for this is not evolution, but Darwinism.”²

He then gives three distinguishing characteristics of Darwinism: “(1) all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor; (2) the principal mechanism of modification has been natural selection acting on undirected variations that originate in DNA mutations; and (3) unguided processes are sufficient to explain all features of living things—so whatever may appear to be design is just an illusion.”³ Darwin’s theory specifically “applies only to living things… [even though he] speculated that life may have started in ‘some warm little pond’ but beyond that he had little to say on the subject.”⁴

Remember, (1) is an unprovable idea, requiring unprovable assumptions, although there is evidence that can be used to support the idea; (2) does not tell the whole story since we now know that the information flow is hierarchical; (3) is actually inadequate to explain all features, and the concept of “unguided processes” is a faith statement to which science cannot legitimately speak.  Of course, the proposition that the appearance of design is an illusion is a faith statement extraordinaire.  To wit, Darwinist real claim is that even though things may appear designed, they cannot be since natural selection is true, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.  This is not a scientific statement but rather a faith statement. If they were not intransigently committed to Darwinism, it would make far more sense to recognize that the reason some things appear to be designed is because they actually were designed.  Of course, that proposition is absolutely unacceptable since design requires a designer, which any true Darwinist rejects maugre the evidence!

It behooves Christians to be careful about accepting Darwinism under the guise of science or evolution, lest some become unwitting Darwinists and disgrace their Lord and their God-given minds.

1. “change over time” “cumulative change through time” “a change in gene frequencies over generations.”…Darwin’s phrase “descent with modification” is okay in a limited sense.  Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2006), 1-2. “Even hypotheses that some closely related species (such as finches on the Galapagos Islands) are descended with modification from a common ancestor are not particularly controversial…”  Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide, 3. [↩]
2. Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide, 3. [↩]
3. Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide, 2. [↩]
4. Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide, 4. [↩]

The following is Antony Flew’s recitation of the point by point refutation of “the monkey theorem” by Gerry Schroeder,¹ which led Flew to conclude that the ‘monkey theorem’² ‘was a load of rubbish.’”³ 

“Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts.  A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys.  After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages—but not a single word….the shortest word in the English language is one letter (a or I)….A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it….The likelihood of getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000.  Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy.  ‘What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?’…He continued, ‘All the sonnets are the same length.  They’re by definition fourteen lines long.  I picked the one I knew the opening line for, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”  There are 488 letters in that sonnet.  What is the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence….What you end up with is…10 to the 690^th.

[Now] the number of particles in the universe—not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons—is 10 to the 80^th.  Ten to the 80^th is 1 with 80 zeros after it.  One to the 690^th is 1 with 690 zeros after it.  There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to 600^th.

If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips—forget the monkeys—each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; If you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90^th trials.  It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600^th.  You will never get a sonnet by chance.  The Universe would have to be 10 to the 600^th times larger.”⁴

Flew concludes, “if the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.”⁵

1. Dr. Gerry Schroeder has a B.Sc. Chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) M.Sc. Earth and planetary sciences, M.I.T., PhD Earth Sciences and Physics M.I.T.; He addresses a similar question “Can random mutations produce the evolution of life? That is the question addressed herein” on his website and he demonstrates the mathematical impossibility of such a notion.  In his article, Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness, http://www.geraldschroeder.com/Evolution.aspx [↩]
2. Also known as the “infinite monkey theorem.”  See similar type experiments, all of which fail to produce support for the mathematical probability of Darwinism.  The “Shakespeare simulator” did after 1 ½ years, which equals 2,738 trillion trillion trillion monkey-years, produce 24 letters from a line in The Second Part of King Henry IV, (a year later the total was up to 30 letters “which took trillions and trillions more monkey-years to produce.”).  However, notes biologist Jonathan Wells “the universe isn’t big enough… to hold all the ‘monkeys’ it would take to type even one of Shakespeare’s sonnets—much less his collected works.  And real monkeys don’t type a letter every second without stopping”, which is what the simulator was programmed to do.  ((Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2006), 93. [↩]
3. Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 77. [↩]
4. Flew, There is a God, 77. [↩]
5. Flew, There is a God, 77. [↩]

The vast majority of Christians will face difficult decisions regarding impending death of a loved one.  I am refining this list, as well as still thinking through other principles, but these have proven to be quite helpful in guiding me to think biblically about such eventualities.

1. Strong families are essential since family members are the ones who will be making some if not all of the decisions, and some decisions will require great sacrifice on the part of the caregivers. 
2. Remembering that all life is sacred, valuable, and worthy of love because of being created in the image of God.  To decide their worth, fate, or just desert based mearly upon anatomical considerations is Darwinian to the core and should be rejected.
3. One should never withhold nutrition, water, and love. The amount of nutrition and water given should be limited to what is ergogenic for the patient, which at times could necessitate limiting them to what the body can use or void.
4. A willingness on the part of decision makers to do what honors God, the “grey haired”, parents, etc., which may be quite costly for the decision maker.
5. Limits should be set by what is actually “impossible” rather than what is economically, physically, and emotionally difficult, or extraordinarily challenging.
6. Medical opinion alone is not sufficient to end a life.
7. Heroic measures are appropriate so long as life is being extended.
8. There is a difference in dying a “natural” death and facilitating an “untimely” death.
9. Seek wise biblical counsel concerning long-term care or life and death decisions because there are nuanced considerations that may shape one’s decisions either in the Biblical or Darwinian direction.

I have given these in order to assist, and granted, they may still leave some questions unanswered, but I believe most of those are better addressed on an individual basis.  Safe general guidelines are to treat them as created in the image of God, regardless of their present or future capabilities, and honor them according to the commands of Scripture; e.g. “honor your father and mother”, “honor the grey haired”.

The Bible speaks of an existence prior to the creation of time and matter in which God alone existed.  Then, Genesis records God creating time and matter, in the words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  That singularity was the beginning of time and matter.  As Christians, we believe that by faith, which is not the same as saying there is no scientific or philosophical evidence for our belief that God created time and space; however, it is to say that since no one was there, regardless of one’s view of origins, it is a faith act.

Scientists speak of this event as a “singularity.”  The Big Bang would be a theory involving the beginning—singularity—before which there was nothing.  Now, when scientists speak of singularity, absolute beginning, they realize that this grants enormous credence to the idea of a creator. (more…)

The dilemma for science is this.  If science claims or presents itself to be the pursuer of truth, following the evidence wherever it may lead, then all plausible answers regarding questions and observations of the empirical data must be weighed and debated based upon their own merit and ability to explain a particular phenomenon or set of phenomena. 

 For example, if the plausibility of the universe coming into existence by an immaterial cause is either the or one of the most plausible answers, then it, as well as purely natural cosmogonies, must be evaluated based upon its own merit.  It cannot, under this definition of science, be a priori excluded from consideration merely because it is an immaterial answer, one held by religion/s, or seems to support the probable existence of God since science is seeking truth by following the empirical evidence regardless where it leads.¹

On the other hand, if science is defined as the study of empirical data, which allows only natural or material antecedents thereby a priori excluding any answer involving immaterial or other than natural antecedents, it may do so.  However, it cannot be defined as such and simultaneously be presented as a pursuer of the truth following the evidence since possible answers are a priori and definitionally excluded from consideration regardless of their plausibility or cogency.  Scientists cannot have it both ways, and scientists need to be precise and honest about what science is and is not.  Moreover, the public needs to demand that science do so and operate accordingly, thereby dispelling the illegitimate hegemony of science in pronouncements and areas that it has no real domanial supremacy. 

Unfortunately, and I think rather deceptively, many scientists intentionally present science as the foremost objective pursuer of the truth, and therefore the best basis for public education, and what is and is not suitable knowledge for public policy, while simultaneously dogmatically defining science to exclude any rival non-natural answers.  The result is that religious knowledge becomes unsuitable for public debate or education because it is automatically classified as innately inferior albeit artificially so.  The two areas of public policy debate and education necessarily explore and impact every consequential area of human life, and if science is the sufficient guide, then by definition life and all knowable and publically meaningful knowledge is knowable empirically, which ipso facto reduces life to nothing more than nature.  This is not only naturalism; it is a tyrannical, stealth, religious naturalism sanctioned by the state masquerading as a truth seeker. 

Tragically, most Americans and the vast majority of the church seem to not understand this subterfuge, and therefore they grant science far too much authority and influence without requiring science to be accountable or to clearly define it.   Unfortunately, most people think if science says it, it is true because science is the unbiased, noble pursuer of truth, and religious beliefs are just that, beliefs. In reality, when one pulls back the cloak of objectivity draped around many of the most significant scientific claims, one often finds philosophical and religious commitments, rather than unsullied scientific evidence, driving scientists to embrace one conclusion over alternates. For example, Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg said that the “steady state theory is philosophically the most attractive theory because it least resembles the account given in Genesis.”²

1. Another consideration regarding rejecting immaterial answers because they happen to be religious beliefs as well is that would cause all material answers to be rejected since some religions believe in the eternality of matter. [↩]
2. Cited in John D. Barrow, The World Within the World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 226 [↩]

Science claims to be the unbiased evaluation of the empirical facts, but anyone who looks at the facts, realizes that far too often, philosophical commitments drive them more than just the facts.

For example, Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg said that the “steady state theory is philosophically the most attractive theory because it least resembles the account given in Genesis.” ¹

1. Cited in John D. Barrow, The World within the World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 226 [↩]

Recently, Richard Carpenter¹ presented a superb paper to The Roundtable in Ideology at Trinity Baptist Church.  His précis, which he derived from the full paper, was read to and discussed with the group over a period of three weeks.

With his permission, I have posted his three précis.  They briefly and superbly elucidate several critical elements of the present debate regarding Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism.

I encourage you to read all three in order to familiarize yourself with the important clarifications Richard makes regarding these key concepts; however, if you desire to read only one, here is the general content of each:

Part I – The Philosophy of Science, Cosmology, and Cosmogony
Part II – The Origin of Life and Species
Part III – Intelligent Design and Public Education

1. Dr. Carpenter holds a Ph. D. in meteorology from the University of Oklahoma and is currently Vice President for Numerical Weather Prediction at Weather Decision Technologies, Inc. [↩]

Some scientists claim that what one can experience with the five senses is all there is; hence there is nothing outside of the material universe.

But wait a moment. If scientific naturalism is true, nature is all there is, religion is merely an expression of need, want, or a quest for power, and only what can be measured is real, then one needs to ask, why trust the scientist? In order for scientists to practice science, which is not a physical thing, they must be outside the prison of nature with its domineering and unstoppable determinism. (more…)

Those of you who know me, know that I am deeply concerned about the pervasiveness of viewing all of life through the lenses of evolution. Thus man is only different in degree from animals rather than created in the image of God and therefore categorically different. Lest you think I am overstating the case when I argue that the most prominent evolutionist see everything through the lenses of “survival of the fittest” and therefore rules that apply to understanding animals apply to man, please note the following.

Peter Atkins, a very prominent evolutionist, professor of physical chemistry and a fellow of Lincoln College at Oxford University, participated in “The Future of Science conference that was held in Venice, Italy in September of 2006. The theme was evolution and as the organizers themselves state: “Evolution is a central concept in many spheres of human endeavour, ranging from astrophysics and genetics to philosophy and psychology. Reflection about evolution is reflection about ourselves, our future and our place in the universe.”

Consequently, the fundamental difference in the monkey at the zoo and you is that you are out of your cage.

Genesis has been a battleground for some time, and today is no different.  This is particularly true of Genesis 1-3, which is the account of the creation and the fall.  When I first began studying the Scripture, I recognized the importance of the first eleven chapters of Genesis but in retrospect I did not fully appreciate the magnitude of their significance.  As I studied other areas of the Scripture and began learning the breadth and depth of God’s revelation, I saw that without the truthfulness and perspicuity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, every major theme of Scripture lay in jeopardy.

Probably the most hotly debated issue, at least among those who would claim any God honoring respect for the Scripture, is whether or not the days of Genesis 1 are lunar days or indefinite periods of time.  In other words, did God create the world in 6 days or is the simple language of Genesis concealing a deeper esoteric meaning only fully revealed to scientists quite apart from the Scripture. Scientists like Hugh Ross accept the theory of evolution and seek to interpret Genesis through the prism of evolution.  In doing so, they seem to undermine what is otherwise the clear teaching of Scripture.

The place to start is always the Scripture rather than psychology, sociology, evolution, etc.  We should evaluate the teachings of man in light of the clear teachings of Scripture rather than seeking to harmonize the Scripture with modern theories about man, God and His world.  I am not at all against learning from science, and/or other disciplines, but to interpret Scripture in light of them rather than through consistent and sound hermeneutics is to subjugate the Scripture to the whims of man. 

Consequently, this article looks at the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day and answers objections to this normal reading of the text.

(more…)