People 

 Latest News 
Loading...
Site Search

Sign up for our
free e-newsletter


Send us your latest local news and events

The miracle of evolution: part of creation

JamesKnight300Regular Network Norwich and Norfolk columnist James Knight talks about how the wonder of evolution is part of God's creation in the final part of his series on Bringing Christianity and Science Together.

 


 

Here we reach the end of my series on bringing Christianity and science together.  Having shown the importance of such a subject and (hopefully) brought to bear greater awareness of some of the more interesting aspects of science, I now want to take it even further by stating that, far from evolution being one big heretical myth, I think God actually speaks to us through evolution, and that we can take our minds on a special and awesome journey if we think about evolution as God intended us to think about it. 

 

Evolution was one of those topological secrets – a fact that remained a mystery for so long - perhaps one of those great surprises that God knew He would reveal when the time is right.  For when we look closely, there were hints of it all along – hints that the grand story of creation, death and resurrection are intimated in evolution itself.  It is because living things die that new things can be born, for as genes pass themselves on and bodies die – new life begins.  And just a natural selection requires this process for evolution to work, so too does the nature that God created require life, death and rebirth for His story to be completed.  This is the simulation of an even more astounding fact about reality – that just as species are always transitional – so too is nature.  The vast history of evolution, with all its subtleties and increments, slowly points towards something even more glorious.  This is God’s miracle of evolution; a miracle observed in its finest depths only by those who He created specially to observe it – men and women created in His image.

 

Evolution reveals an awesome God

When I look at the vastly complex parts of evolution and the vast nexus of evolutionary activity, I find myself more in awe of God, not less.  If quantum mechanics shows us that reality must always be partially veiled (there are hints of this in Job 36:29, Ecclesiastics 11:5, and Isaiah 5:9), the vast evolutionary activity shows us that God has more to say to us through the intricacies of nature than we ever previously realised.  For those that choose to look, there is an incredible story in evolution - I can see God working for the good of our own psychology - the story is more stupendous than we perhaps realise.  The eternity that God has set in our hearts has in it some sense of the desire to praise God for all that we are.  God in fact stirs our heart so that we enjoy praising Him.  Our hunger is not fed until it is fed by Him. 

 

We can see even from our own human imperfections a story in evolution.  The human eye is not ideally evolved; many human beings have poor vision or lose their good vision at a relatively young age.  Light does not ideally reach the rods and cones without passing through blood vessels.  Our spine is not ideally evolved, neither is our jaw, wisdom teeth, the appendix (which it seems beneficial not to have) - this on the face of it does not seem like the most intelligent of designs, until we see the real reason why.  Everything is running down - we were never meant to find the whole story in nature alone - her imperfections were part of her essence, and so are ours. 

 

Whatever nature has thrown our way, there is better to come, much better.  If this nature provided the condition for God to humble Himself as a man, the next will be a new creation altogether, a creation in which all His glory will be made known.  We should not be surprised to see God working through a developing process.  Nature is herself full of precursors, there are many events that occur before we predicted they would, and the whole history of animal progression is only one example of this.  Proto-man is to man what nature is to the Heavenly realm - a precursory fact.  Just as the miracles of Christ came before His own grand miracle, the resurrection - the miracle of evolution was decided long before God’s grand miracle in Adam.  When we see miracles we see God telling nature exactly what He wants it to do. 

 

You must in one sense give up thinking about objections to evolution because of what you hold onto spiritually, for in fact, in the strictest sense every atom is a miracle - it is magic being perceived through our own magical perception.  Every human activity much less every sub-atomic movement pales in comparison to the glorious Divine activity that will be thrust upon our souls when His glory is revealed.  How could anyone think that physical activity should be objected to as an affront to Christ’s work?  There is matter in your body that was once a part of a stellar explosion, matter that was once in a fish, and a dinosaur, even a carrot.  This is the nature of creation, it has no material distinction when broken down; it is the supernatural activity which generates its Divine power. 

 

Nature is a series of many events, none of which tell a complete story.  The wind blowing across your face and in your eyes is a passed event the moment it stops or the moment you turn away.  But the wind has no end in sight; every event resulted from a preceding event and sets off another subsequent event.  We must not ascribe silly human limitations to God’s creation.  Nature is only limited in the sense that God does what He wants within the framework.  The whole of nature has within it a message; every event and every fact tells us something about the system, and furthermore what we are to become.  Every part of nature’s imperfection can, if we are being attentive, offer us a glimpse of a perfect alternative - we know that we were created for something better than nature herself. 

 

Those who misunderstand the importance of evolution are so often guilty of seeing things either as profane or pious - and if they set their minds towards the latter they can allow no reasoning when it comes to the former; that is, they will not accept anything to be true of nature that does not shine a pious light in their eyes.  If evolution is true it is as supernaturally created as anything else in creation - for the whole of creation, from the first self-replicating organism right through to the last man born before Christ’s return, will all have been carefully supervised, the laws and regulations for which would have been underwritten long before man developed enough cognitive faculties to take umbrage at his own evolutionary lineage. 

 

The evolution of cells and organisms is a relatively ungrand system compared with the one that is happening right before our eyes now.  Nature is being rebuilt, day-by day God is turning her (and us) into what He wants it to be.  He is reconfiguring the matter to suit His own plan.  Why should we be so surprised that what went on before us was a reconfiguration of a more primitive nature, a nature which shows how glorious this modern day nature is?  Perhaps the man that thinks about the world and tries to comprehend vast evolutionary timescales and then thinks about what it has become does not look upon our own daily time with feelings of great fortuity and great blessing and privilege.  Surely the man who thinks about the primordial soup can’t help but feel very blessed that God saw to it that the whole trajectory of earthly activity was organised with him in mind. 

 

Of course, we will not know until the end precisely how physics and metaphysics blend together - you cannot know the value of a five pound note until you understand the British monetary system.  Perhaps it has never occurred to some people how much we can learn from our observations and knowledge; that as regards properties of each, men and beasts share the majority of their own make-up.  How far we have come thus far with such knowledge, and how much further we can go - the multitude of scientific disciplines that are predicated on the fact that all creatures are part of the same large evolutionary tree or web open up immense scientific potential. 

 

The splendour of science

Those young earth creationists and anti-evolutionists who are prepared to step away from their intransigence and see for themselves the splendour of science and all its achievements will find themselves inside a door they had thought previously was too hard to unlock.  And you can be sure of one thing, our Lord made it so stupendous on purpose, for He knows how much of a glorious liberation knowledge of creation can be, what wonders it reveals to us and what edification it provides for us.  When He gave us the faculty of reason and presented us with the whole history of evolutionary activity on this earth He showed us part of the majesty of creation.  The sinuous twists and turns of natural selection, the species that died out, the species that prospered - all this is part of a big picture, a picture painted for our own benefit. 

 

What constrains we place on ourselves when we look right through it.  The ancients, when worshipping the celestial bodies, and even when worshipping animals and trees, were wrong; that is, the worship really belonged to the Creator Himself.  But in one way they did feel a little bit of what needed to be felt if the Lord’s wonderful creation was to be seen as it deserves to be seen.  For the whole of creation is one glorious miracle.  And just as we have disgruntled looks at those who direct their worship towards the wrong thing, we see an equal disgruntlement if the opposite happens; for it is only when we begin to sense how awesome God is and how far above creation He is that every bit of matter in the universe, including the physiological human body, seems almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of eternity.  We are even told that the body itself won’t make it past nature. 

 

fossilTherefore why do people get so offended to think that ‘body’ itself is linked to a chain of evolutionary activity which involves every other physiological creature in creation?  Why do you think that we are more special than the rabbit or the swan?  In fact studying organisms reminds us that in physical terms alone we are not the grandest of God’s creatures - the giraffe, the blue whale, the elephant, the hippopotamus, and of course the dinosaurs, to name but a few - were much more grand in stature.  No, what sets us apart from them is that God so decided at one point in history that He would put Himself into man, that the next stage of the evolutionary process was ready to begin with the first Adam. 

 

We know full well that the new Heaven and the new earth will only take in that which God has supplemented into the interlocking system.  There have always been hints of it, the wonderful devotional poetry, some great pieces of classic music, the majestic pieces of landscape, true love between two people, the times when numinous awe for the Heavenly realm came across without any earthly distractions, these feelings were hints of it, but they were not quite the real things, not just yet.  And as soon as we try to imagine what the ‘Heavenly’ will be like we immediately destroy the image with some earthly invasion into our thoughts.  And just as we cannot imagine the perfect image, the ideal inner-reification through a thought process, equally we cannot quite see (or some people cannot quite see) the real glory and beauty of nature - beauty, paradoxically, shown through some of the worst parts of nature, for all the time the beauty was to be found shot right past the real reified horror of physical matter. 

 

As regards a man’s inability to see the real truth behind the evolutionary story, I think his outlook might be like that of a mother’s son who when told by his mum about Heaven asks ‘Will I get to play my computer games as much as I want?’  Upon hearing that there will be no need for computer games in Heaven, her son might regard this fact as the predominant fact about Heaven and look upon it with disappointment.  Of course he will grow out of it.  But at the moment he knows ‘computer’ to be the highest pleasure, he does not know about the strength of the pleasures that need no computers to enhance their quality.  In fact, as he grows older he will of course find such pleasures on earth.  To me the young earth creationist or anti-evolutionist is a little like that, he can’t let go of what he has because he can’t anticipate the real pleasure of a better revelation.  Where revelation waits, he sticks with the circumscribed approach to rationality.  Of course YECs and anti-evolutionists will not be asked to surrender their beliefs in order to see the new creation, only those who are beaten sinners will throw down their weapons.  But I am as certain as I can be that when Christ said He came to give us a full life, He was in favour of our taking on board good evidence when it came, after all He knew that for people of future generations, such as now, good evidence was going to be something which Christians themselves would cite as their principal reason for believing that God did became man and walk the streets of Palestine 2000 years ago.  Is it too much to ask that we confer a similar respect to other kinds of good evidence when they are presented to us?

 

We are asked how we can reconcile death and extinction seen in evolution before man, with God’s creation?  Well, the whole of creation has been set up for just that.  Even when the supernatural invades the natural and colonises our cognition we see death and extinction happening, we see the death and extinction of all those unhelpful things in nature happening every time we let one of the bad parts of the self die, for we know that Christ is about to fill the vacancies with something more glorious.  In a sense the whole picture of death and rebirth was laid out in allegorical form every time we look at the evolutionary history of biological activity in nature.  The figures of us - death and rebirth, the literal and the metaphorical, extinction and longevity, rationale and foolishness, nature and spirit, mind and matter, truth and falsehood, are all cut apart by the spiritual activity in the interlocking system, for without the generating engine - the driving force behind the system - there are no distinctions between any of these - everything is bound up in the knotted texture of matter. 

 

But in the case of the former there are opportunities for the creaturely minds to connect with the Divine engine, so that nature and supernature are seen as they were really meant to be seen.  God did not create this long story so that we could live in the dark ages, He created the system so that we could grow into it enough so that we could leave it behind - the system, or simulacrum of the Divine realm, is here for the purposes of a Divine relationship; and in the vast complexities of that system it is, I imagine, tempting to disregard science in favour of an atavistic one 2 one between creature and Creator.  But it need not be the case, for the Lord has so much to reveal about Himself through the complexities of nature, even more so, He has so much more to tell us about the majesty of Heaven from the unmajestic realities in nature herself. 

 

Those who see evolution for what it has to say are those who are able to see the great paradoxes in nature, for they are one chapter of the whole story.  Evolution has thus far given us hints of all of the great paradoxes and all of the chasms in creation - the evolution that eventuated in man has shown us in variable proportions - death and rebirth, the literal and the metaphorical, extinction and longevity, rationale and foolishness, nature and spirit, mind and matter, truth and falsehood, and most importantly, spiritual activity in the interlocking system - activity between nature and supernature.  But you have to look to the most primary parts of nature, the primordial days of evolutionary progression in order to see the wonders of the Divine working in more advanced creatures.  The vast array of evolutionary activity, which included death and extinction was, in my view, God displaying a blueprint for what creation would later become when the spiritual was added to the physical. 

 

And if we look carefully we can see, just as the simulacrum of nature is a reflection of the Divine realm, the pre-human evolutionary activity is but a reflection of what nature is to become before she is cast aside for the Heavenly glories.  Everything that happened in a literal sense in evolution; death, extinction and rebirth, happens both metaphorically in the later creation and, when the literal and the metaphorical are harmonised, in the new creation too.  The whole of creation started at the finger of God - it will end in His hand, and in between, the whole rush of natural activity is set out in the blueprint.  And as nature reveals more of herself to us, aided by the Holy Spirit within us, we see that the incipient stages of His creation were to set the patterns for our own death and rebirth.  The interlocking system of nature, including all of its evolutionary history, is the melody which brings together the Spirit and the flesh; therefore Christ and man are brought together too, and out of which will arise, eventually, the instrument for eternity that will wipe away every tear in the world and supplant it with the new creation. 

 

I am very sorry when I hear young earth creationists saying ‘Does it really matter whether God used evolution or not? - after all, we Christians are all saved anyway if we come to know Christ’. To ask this is to answer your own question at the same time.  To the truly implacable, one feels such sorrow in having to say to them, ‘If science distracts you from following Christ then do without it’ - but what a despairing admission for those that know Christ and find fascination in the beauty of creation. 

 

To the young earth creationists and anti-evolutionists (if there are any on here) I would like to say this.  If you are the sort of personality who feels threatened by innovation and discovery you will have to close your eyes and ears when they come into your stead.  But there is a price to pay, aside from the ridicule and the ostracism as you wave goodbye to reason and rationality, as you drift off owing science and philosophy and, yes, theology, a big apology, you will, in my view, misrepresent the glorious state of Christian knowing, you will have created a chasm (as many already have) that need not exist; a chasm that our Lord Himself never intended to exist (It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way. Proverbs 19:2). 

 

For me, the real nature of free devotion comes with the knowledge that ascetic devotion will only impair genuine growth and elucidation.  Where our progenitors looked towards the horizon and saw haze and fog, thanks to an age of genuine scientific enlightenment, we are beginning to see further skies.  Of course I do not mean that this necessarily helps men to become Christians, in fact, it seems the opposite is true.  But the man who is most blessed is the one who has been looking for the clearer skies all the time while at the same time progressing towards them with every desire in his heart to follow Christ towards the horizon, putting Him first every step of the way.  Science will give him, along the way, moral dilemmas (embryology, cloning, etc) but he will know that throughout all this Christ has the answers.  To limit yourself to scriptural doctrine and fail to look outside of that for supplementation is to abandon part of the self, or at least depart from the self’s real needs.  To close our ears and eyes to God’s story in evolution is as if we ran away from education instead of learning.

 

As for Christians, it is important not to be quarantined from rationale and genuine progression; after all, who will trust us with a fortune if we cannot be trusted with a few pennies?  Who will believe we have the truth about eternity if we fail so gratuitously in simple truths about nature herself?  Nature herself has lots to say to us in her simple form; but we have progressed much further now, nature is no longer simple.  We have progressed so far because we have not been happy to sit back and leave her alone.  As GK Chesterton once remarked, “If you leave a white post alone, it will soon be a black post”. 

 

I have written this to let you know how much it saddens me that so much Christian worship seems to involve the abandonment of science and rational philosophy.  But I also want the atheists and agnostics to know that from where I’m sitting (and many like me) the Christian faith is based on something wholly rational and that not all of us wish to be immunised from good scientific progression.

 

We are, of course, still awaiting the true marriage of the self to the Heavenly realm – true blessing has yet to be conferred fully.  But we all know of the hints in nature, and also the hints creeping from outside of nature.  Even the staunchest atheist is not impervious to the disquietude when he is faced with a genuine hint of a ghost; equally, even the strongest man of faith is not impervious to feeling of ‘What if all this is in my imagination?’.  But every experience and doubt and conviction gives us an expression of how real it all is, for we should expect to find pure unadulterated conviction only in things that we have convinced ourselves must be true outside of genuine logical truth (as is the case with many of the cults). 

 

This is where C.S Lewis and I would part company.  He makes the claim that most of us will never experience a miracle in our lifetime.  No, I think a great many of us experience miracles every day, without perhaps realising the true spiritual state of activity occurring.  In the act of salvation and Divine revelation each one of us has experienced a miracle, and each day as our Lord blesses us with knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, devotion, faith, commitment and the multitude of other abilities without which we would not have the slightest hint of the trajectory of our growth and progression on this wonderful journey - none of them could be factual without the miraculous occurring every step of the way, for nature herself is the miracle in which we can receive that which God has, and wants desperately, to give.  It was always a great error of man to think that that didn’t apply to the multitudinous tenets of human knowledge and understanding that so many Christians desperately attempt to avoid at all costs.

 

As I finish this off, I can see out of my window on this particular day a sunny spell has broken through the clouds after a day of sporadic rainfall.  I myself can attribute to the weather the effect it has had on my own cognisance and how it has either interrupted my plans or added to them.  But to omniscience, there is much more going on in a sunny day than one individual perspective, for in bringing out the weather for the day, God would have in His plan the moods, activities, feelings and emotions, of everybody affected by it, all the creatures too, perhaps even every atom in range.  Perhaps one rainy day in Norwich is interlocked so as to be inextricable to every event within the interlocking system.  We are, of course, going beyond what we can know.  But one thing of which I am fairly certain, if we are ascribing to God a level of thought which, when brought into earthly activity, affects us as much as I have just said, then we can be quite certain the vast history of evolutionary progression, from abiogenesis, cellular life, natural selection, death, extinction, to the vast array of proto-creatures that preceded the creatures we have today - all of these facts about creation have by being there something that was foreseen by the Divine - some interrelation with our own cognisance; emotions, moods, activities, all of which add something to the system of nature, from which we can learn so much about ourselves, about creation, and, most importantly, about God.

 


 

The views carried here are those of the author, not of Network Norwich and Norfolk, and are intended to stimulate constructive debate between website users. We welcome your thoughts and comments, posted below, upon the ideas expressed here. You can also contact the author direct at james.knight@norfolk.gov.uk 

James is a Norwich local government officer, author and Proclaimers church member in Norwich. 
You can access his current collections of columns here

Meanwhile, if you want to find out more about Christianity, visit: www.rejesus.co.uk

., 05/05/2009

Feedback:
(page   1   2   3)
Timothy V Reeves (Guest)18/05/2009 17:18
Hi James! Welcome back!

As you can see from the last two article comment threads I just couldn't resist tackling Andrew's take on information, probability and the second law of thermodynamics. But I've left plenty of work for you to do on other issues; after a lazy week with your feet up I didn't like the thought of you coming back and finding nothing to do and having an easy life.

As you can see I gave Andrew the challenge of generating a million random digits and that might keep him off your back for a bit. Actually there is a catch in exercise: there really is no such thing as a random digit. There are random sequences that exist by virtue of the configurational relationships between digits, but no single digit, has the intrinsic property of randomness as such. "Not a lot of people know that" - especially the animists.
James Knight19/05/2009 09:51
Ok Tim, but I'll make a deal with you, the next time we have a crusader who doesn't know very much about the subjects he's addressing, I'll do the information, probability, and second law of thermodynamics, and you can do the Genesis exegesis. Ho hum!
Andrew Halloway (Guest)20/05/2009 12:25
Since Timothy has tackled me on thermodynamics, I would rather let an expert on this subject speak than me. Andy McIntosh is Professor of Thermodynamics at Leeds University. He says:
“The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new functional biological structure to be achieved without new machinery already being in place.
The laws of thermodynamics have one law in particular – the 2nd law – which says that in a closed system the amount of energy that is no longer available for useful work is increasing. This is energy ‘lost’ to the system per unit degree of temperature, and it is called the entropy of the system. The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since unless there is a machine to use the energy added, there is no benefit. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory by adding loads of sunlight or electricity unless the machinery is available to use that energy to build Boeing 777s. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines just by adding energy if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneous forming of such machinery will not happen.
A machine is a device for using energy to do work of some kind. Energy without machines just dissipates (the sun’s energy would be typical). But a machine harnesses energy to advantage: a solar cell turns the suns rays into electricity; a Rolls Royce Trent gas turbine turns chemical energy into thrust to power aircraft; the chlorophyll reaction in a plant leaf uses sunlight to enable the plant to grow and absorb carbon dioxide while emitting oxygen; the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) motor in living organisms transfers energy from food and respiration into useable energy to drive the cell machinery of DNA, ribosomes, amino acids and protein building, etc. In this sense, all machines are entropy lowering devices.
But unlike macro machines, chemical machinery at the molecular level involves setting up proteins of hundreds and usually thousands of polypeptide bonds linking a string of amino acids. And each of these bonds is in a raised energy state such that left to itself, it would break down and not stay in that state.
To suggest that the raised energy state would be maintained while natural selection favoured, over many generations, single random mutations – one by one – to finally bring together the full complement of necessary amino acids is frankly thermodynamically absurd. This is never observed experimentally and is contrary to all thermodynamic principles of energy transfer.
And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines. Intelligence is needed. And this thesis is falsifiable. If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified. No one has ever achieved this.
In his excellent book ‘The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution’, the late Dr A.E. Wilder Smith [former Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois] summarizes the argument from Thermodynamics:
‘Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply “happened”, for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not “happen”.’
My position is to side with experimental science and not with 'just so' attempts to get round the clear evidence of design in nature.”

I agree.
James Knight20/05/2009 13:58
Andrew, you make so many scientific errors, that one hardly knows where to begin. You've just demonstrated the problem with simply citing other people’s work without having much of a clue about what they're on about. This, in fact, forms the basis for most of your arguments - I'm not sure even YOU know what you're really arguing.

The second law of thermodynamics does no such thing – it is not a roadblock to evolution. It says that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease, but this does not prevent evolution from taking place, because increasing order is not being prevented.

Firstly, the earth is not a closed system Andrew; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth. But entropy is not the same as disorder (although, of course, the two correspond), but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size and the subsequent cellular activity that goes on to produce change. We can take this further - even in a closed system pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. The rub, Andrew, is that order from disorder happens on earth all the time, and evolution is a prime example of this. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, therefore, you are barking up the wrong tree - no physical laws are preventing them. Vast amounts of study have been done and this - connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in great depth - and never to the detriment of evolution. But you're the sort of guy that sees a catchy headline (as you did with the ‘Darwin was wrong’ title on the New Scientist mag, mentioned in the other thread - {he wasn't wrong, by the way] - and takes that as a great big bullseye on the posterior regions of those who argue differently (and as it happens, more sensibly) than yourself.

It may even be true that evolution/origin of life is driven by entropy; in fact, some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law, so organisms diversify to fill empty niches, rather like a gas that expands to fill an empty container. One could even propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently - but the counter argument to that seems to be based on this spurious notion of yours (although it's not really yours, is it Andrew?) that increasing order is possible, locally and temporarily, only if there is a Governor to direct growth and a power converter. Once again, you’re confusing 'God is necessary for creation' (a true statement) with this 'I, Andrew, can claim a palpable absence of X means Y' (an incorrect statement) - given that your proprietary estimation of the nature of X and Y really are, of course faulty. Here's a better way of viewing the situation. The second law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about programs to direct growth, and the only "power converter" it deals with is change in entropy - you cannot justifiably make such claims by bemoaning an absence of intentionality. Growth and order can be seen arising without an X program in many places. Clouds form complex orderly patterns, streams sort the size of the stones in their bed along their length, cooling basalt forms a hexagonal pattern of cracks. All of these show an increase in organisation, but you wouldn't say that we can't make them fly with theoretical notions - that's just how the world is Andrew - at least, that's how we view it.

Let me reiterate something for you Andrew - increasing order is NOT a violation of the second law of thermodynamics - even temporarily. A violation would be a decrease in entropy without a greater increase in entropy to go with it. Neither growth nor evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics because both take advantage of local differences in entropy to get work done. The environment IS the program through which and in which evolution occurs, and natural selection serves to communicate information from the environment to the populations of organisms, which, as I have said before, we see happening in every area of evolution.

Here's some more homework for you Andrew - get to grips with the notion that an increase in organised complexity is NOT the same as a decrease in entropy. The second law applies only to entropy; it says nothing that you think it says about organised complexity.

I've got lots more of your other points to cover, in this thread and in the other thread, but I'm having a hard-drive crisis at present, so I had better get back to that.

Yours fraternally, and with lots of love

James
Andrew Halloway (Guest)20/05/2009 14:59
Sorry to haear about your hard-drive crisis, but I wonder if that is why my answer to your point above has been deleted from here? I said you've not answered Prof Macintosh's arguments, just avoided them.
You accuse me of scientific errors. Fine, but I don't think Prof Macintosh does.
And I don't think Philip Johnson does when he says: "Attempts to accommodate theism and Darwinism are inherently futile, but the accommodation of theism and empirical science is quite another matter. In the long run theistic religion has nothing to fear from true science, because both are human understandings of an underlying reality rooted in the same divine source. Moreover, empirical science is limited by its methods, and can only tell us how things work rather than whether they were brought into existence in furtherance of a higher purpose. The fact that Darwinists continually claim to have a scientific answer to the question of purpose is itself an indication that they are engaged in something other than a true empirical science.
What kind of science is Darwinism? The best answer to that question is provided in the first chapter of Douglas Futuyma's widely used college evolutionary biology textbook. Professor Futuyma, an able and dedicated defender of Darwinism, explains Darwin's importance in these words:
'By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism—of much of science, in short—that has since been the stage of most Western thought.'
Darwin, Marx, and Freud. These three giants of materialism head everyone's list of the most influential makers of the twentieth-century mind-set. Today there are still a few Freudians and Marxists left, but even they would be embarrassed to cite Freudianism or Marxism as examples of empirical science. We now know these ideologies for what they always were: imaginative stories told to advance a materialist worldview, and buttressed by a beguiling pretense of scientific methodology."
A perfect description of Darwinism, which will go the same way as Freudianism and Marxism.
James Knight20/05/2009 15:18
Andrew, I wasn't aware that anything was deleted, and I have no control over these matters.

Unless it was offensive?

Why not post it again, or email it to me?

James
Timothy V Reeves (Guest)20/05/2009 18:27
I’ll comment on Macintosh’s statement.

McIntosh says:

“…chemical machinery at the molecular level involves setting up proteins of hundreds and usually thousands of polypeptide bonds linking a string of amino acids. And each of these bonds is in a raised energy state such that left to itself; it would break down and not stay in that state.”

No problem with that because we know that the physical constraints on the biological regime in terms of its initial self maintaining configurations and dynamical laws not only sustains molecular order but also creates order amongst previously unordered molecular material as it annexes it without violation of the second law. The lesson is: If sufficient physical constraint is added to a system, the second law does not entail the elimination of local increases in order.

The next statement by McIntosh degenerates into sheer assertion:

“To suggest that the raised energy state would be maintained while natural selection favoured, over many generations, single random mutations – one by one – to finally bring together the full complement of necessary amino acids is frankly thermodynamically absurd.”


I’m afraid that really depends on the CONSTRAINTS on the system. Disordered shufflings of molecules and atoms ensures that a system moves toward its most probable state; in passing to that state local pockets of high organization can develop and decay without violation of the second law as we see with embryonic development. The creation of highly organized cybernetic machines is only thermodynamically absurd if and only if the physical constraints are so loose that a drift toward maximum disorder is favoured everywhere.

As far as life is concerned a-priori physical constraints cause local increases in order, although, of course, there is still an overall tendency to maximum disorder. Hence the physical constraints on our world are such that it is untrue to say that a drift toward maximum disorder is favored everywhere; it simply does not happen and it is thermodynamically erroneous to claim otherwise

Since we have yet to establish here if the physical constraint of reducible complexity applies to the cosmos then this constraint, if it exists, would work like the DNA in life; it is a configuration capable of creating local increases in order whilst the system as a whole runs down to maximum disorder. After all, we as Christians believe we are dealing with a creation; that is a subtle “machine” created by God. It is not a “natural” world created by the Gnostics demiurge. Hence those animistic distinctions between natural and supernatural causes don’t really exist. There is only one logically self sufficient cause: God
Timothy V Reeves (Guest)20/05/2009 18:29
Finally let me comment on this statement by McIntosh:


"If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified. No one has ever achieved this."

Doubtful! Ostensibly DNA is a chemical machine which generates a chemical machine called human beings. Human beings have generated a machine called society and society has generated cars, computers, the internet, and jet aircraft each of which are themselves beyond the single intelligent insights by human beings. The Creator is truly marvelous in His works. (See http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com/2009/05/darwin-bicentenary-part-17-time-to-cash.html for more details)

My advice to Andrew: rather than just quote McIntosh as an authority why not try to understand his arguments yourself and then perhaps you will be able to get a better grasp on this subject. Because you appear not to understand the arguments you have little choice but to call on authority to inform you. Hence for you it’s a case of which authority you are going to believe regardless of logic. You will be impervious to reason until you start thinking about this subject yourself rather than relying on McIntosh. If you start to grasp the logic yourself it might save you from foisting you own superficial delusions about “natural” evolution onto others and then accusing them of courting paganism and atheism. That’s nearly as bad as thrusting them into straw men and burning them.
James Knight26/05/2009 13:38
Andrew, I’m covering the rest of your points in the other thread, but having looked here at your Genesis interpretation, I have to say, I think you severely misrepresent what the book of Genesis is actually saying and its cardinal (perhaps only) purpose.

Heed some advice from the great Bertrand Russell and work out the Genesis analogue – he says

“Pure mathematics consists entirely of such asservations as that, if such and such a proposition is true of ANYTHING, then such and such another proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to discuss whether the first proposition is really true, and not to mention what the anything is of which it is supposed to be true”

What he’s saying here is that our deductions constitute mathematics if our hypothesis is about ANYTHING and not about some constitute part(s). The rules of logic are to mathematics what those of structure are to architecture, and similarly, the rules of interpretation are to scripture what those of architecture are to structure – it is because of our structurally designing and formulating our interpretations that scripture becomes the word of God -otherwise it is just lifeless, inert paper and ink. Believe it or not Andrew, interpretation can change as we progress in knowledge, but that does not mean we compromise or liberalise its true meaning – far from it. By using a good common sense foundation we actually enhance our own understanding in a world that God intended to be progressive. The people of that time did not know we were ancestrally related, or that the earth was billions of years old. Now we do.

In the terms of debating whether Genesis constitutes anything scientific, it is roughly as follows, as per above; axioms are laid down foundationally, precise rules of inference are formulated, and contentions (in mathematics they are theorems) are derived from the axioms by means of the rules of inference. And of course one has to impute ‘meaning’ based on these principles too. Now you see, because of the false dichotomy you guys have created between scripture and scientific theory, atheists have seized on this and have used it to their advantage. So, to take an example, some ask why the Bible does not mention proto-humans or anything about our ancestral past. Well, if one alters the ‘intentionality’ axiom a little then, using the above ‘rules of inference’, we can impute a proper meaning and say ‘because that is not the intention of the book’. The parts where our ancestry might be mentioned are early Genesis - yet early Genesis is a very rudimentary explication of the consequences of choosing the self over choosing God. By Genesis 3:15 we already find out that God has a plan for the salvation of mankind, but it is not a book about evolution, so your citations are ill-conceived. Why is this mistake commonly made? Because the axiomatic foundations of the questioner are wrong to begin with, and the damage (although not irreparable) is already done. It’s because of guys like yourself that impressionable atheists believe what they’re told about the supposed dichotomy; that is, they too wonder why Genesis isn’t consistent with their view of science because even some of the Christians are telling them it should be. There’s a lot of waking up to be done and a lot of coffee to be smelled.

I will look at each one of your cited verses in due course, but let me tell you in advance that I do not think a single verse you have mentioned causes evolutionary theory any problem at all.

Regards

James
xxx (Guest)26/05/2009 14:32
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html
(page   1   2   3)

We welcome article comments from users

To add a comment to most articles you must be a logged-in site member. You can either log-in or quickly sign up to become a site member below.
To join Network Norwich and Norfolk you need to register or login

Network Norwich and Norfolk > People > James Knight > The miracle of evolution: part of creation
Not rated. (30 reviews / comments)
  • Write a review or comment
  •  Norfolk Services 
    Loading...