Monday, April 23, 2007

What Darwinism cannot explain

Over 600 doctoral scientists have signed a statment called "Dissent from Darwinism" which reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Why do a growing number of scientists doubt Darwin?
There are five things Darwinism cannot explain:
1. The "first cause" of the universe.
2. The origin of life.
3. Human consciousness and reasoning.
4. The "Cambrian explosion" when most of the known phyla of the animal kingdom show up in the fossil record in a relatively brief period of history.
5. The complexity of the simplest life forms, such as bacterial flagellum and DNA.
Read more in the first comment below.


Brother Bob said...

“The Problem of Darwinism: How can I believe in God when Darwin taught that life evolved by natural selection?” (Genesis 1-2)

INTRODUCTION: In 1859, biologist Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, and in 1871 he published another book, The Descent of Man, setting off a firestorm of controversy that rages even to this day.

In his books, Darwin put forth his theory of evolution, saying that life evolved through natural selection and the survival of the fittest.

In 1925, the controversy hit a high point in the so-called “Scopes monkey trial” over a Tennessee law that made it illegal to teach evolution in public schools. Today, the pendulum has swung the other way, and now its illegal to teach anything but evolution in public schools!

Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins told the New York Times: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” (William A. Demski, The Design Revolution, p. 52.)

Despite the arrogant dominance of Darwinism over public education and the mainstream news media, roughly half of Americans reject the theory of evolution and instead believe that God created humans, according to a new Newsweek poll.

The survey of 1,004 adults, conducted March 28-29, found that 48 percent of Americans believe God made humans. Another 30 percent believe humans evolved over millions of years, with God guiding the process -- a belief sometimes called theistic evolution. Only 13 percent believe in a God-less evolution.

(“Half of Americans reject evolution,” Baptist Press, April 2, 2007).

In most any other area of science, the public appears ready to support the opinions of the scientific community, but not in this area. Why is that? Could it be because we sense deep down that there is something about it that does not make sense? Yes! And in a moment, I will show you five reasons. But first, let us define what we’re talking about.

Christians should not fall into the trap of saying we don’t believe in evolution. Listen carefully to what I am saying: We do believe in micro-evolution; however, we do not believe in macro-evolution. There is a very big difference.

Let me explain what we mean by micro-evolution. There is no doubt that circumstances have favored larger birds over smaller ones, dark moths over lighter moths, or drug-resistant bacteria.

But it is an entirely different matter to say that pea soup evolved into monkeys who evolved into human beings! This is claiming much more than development within a species. It is the claim that natural causes developed entirely new species. This is what we mean by macro-evolution.

The word game that Darwinists play is to give examples of micro-evolution and pretend that it proves macro-evolution. They say, “See, birds developed longer beaks, so evolution is a fact.” That’s true. Micro-evolution is a fact, but that doesn’t prove macro-evolution at all.

So instead of the term “evolution,” I will use the term “Darwinism.” By “Darwinism,” I mean the theory developed by Charles Darwin in his famous book, On the Origin of Species. Darwin himself was an atheist who believed that life developed out of nothing by mere chance and natural selection, and new species continued to evolve through the survival of the fittest. So man was not created as a man, Darwin said, but evolved from lower primates.

It is interesting that not only is the general population skeptical of Darwinism, but a growing number of scientists are skeptical, as well.

I have with me a list of 600 scientists who have signed a statement called “A Dissent from Darwinism.” The scientists on this list signed the following statement, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Why are more and more scientists skeptical of Darwinism? Because there are so many things that Darwinism cannot explain, that it actually takes more faith to believe in Darwinism than to believe that a Supreme Being designed the universe.

Let me list for you five things Darwinism cannot explain:

I. Darwinism cannot explain the first cause

Darwinism cannot explain where everything began. What is the first cause? At first, Darwinists could deny that the universe had a beginning. They could say it always existed. Bu when Albert Einstein discovered his theory of relativity, he showed that the universe is not remaining static, but is changing. So scientists developed a theory called “the Big Bang.” They say that at some point—boom! – it all began.

Yet Darwinism has no explanation for how this could be. If everything happens by chance, how could something cause it all to begin?

On the other hand, the Bible has an answer for the first cause of creation.

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created…” The Bible explains that everything begins with God.

II. Darwinism cannot explain the origin of life

Darwin's theory is that life began somehow from non-life, but it has no explanation for how this happened.

Biochemist and spiritual skeptic Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, said, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p. 42)

“Almost a miracle” he said. Interesting! The Bible has an explanation for the origin of life: God made life!

Genesis 1:20 says, “Then God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures…”

III. Darwinism cannot explain consciousness

Darwinism teaches that everything came from nothing. “Random mutation” it is called. Yet human beings are able to think and reason. According to Darwinism, this consciousness, this reasoning ability, would have to come from unconsciousness, and non-reasoning. But Darwinism has no way of explaining how carbon particles could mutate into thinking, reasoning beings with a free will.

According to Darwinism, we are just very complicated computers that behave according to the laws of nature and the programming we receive. According to Darwinism, the things I do are fixed by my environment, my genetics, my circumstances, etc., because I am no different from a monkey.

But you and I know down deep that we do have a free will. We’re more than just a physical brain. Darwinism cannot explain that, but the Bible can.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

Literally, the Hebrew word used here is that he became a nephesh, a living soul in the King James Version (KJV), a living “being” in other translations. So the Bible has an answer for how we gained consciousness: God created human life with an ability to think and reason when He gave mankind a soul.

IV. Darwinism cannot explain the Cambrian explosion

Darwinism teaches macro-evolution, that is, that a species can evolve into an entirely new and different species. For this to happen, Darwinism teaches that it happened very, very slowly, over a very long period of time: billions of years.

The problem is that the fossils that have been discovered show something completely different. Scientists refer to the “Cambrian explosion” as a period of time when suddenly a whole lot of new species developed, all at about the same time.

Scientists refer to the highest category in the animal kingdom as a phyla. All of the species within a given phyla are similar. All creatures are categorized into one of 40 different phyla in the animal kingdom. Paleontologists now think that during a relatively brief period of time in the past, at least 20 and as many as 35 of the world’s 40 phyla sprang forth as unique body plans. To put this into perspective, if you were to compress all of the Earth’s history into twenty-four hours, the Cambrian explosion took place in about one minute. (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p. 239)

So we have time going along, and then – boom! – more than half of the species suddenly come into existence.

Darwinism, with its theory of gradual evolution, cannot explain that. But the Bible can.

Genesis 1:24-25 says, “And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.”

When God spoke -- boom!— the Cambrian explosion took place.

V. Darwinism cannot explain the complexity of the simplest life forms

Finally, Darwinism cannot explain how life is so extremely complex at the most basic levels. This is very important to understand, because Darwin taught that life evolved from simple life forms that were not complex, to higher life forms that were much more complex.

But we now know that the smallest of life forms have are amazingly complex. For example, in 1973 it was discovered that tiny little bacteria have a flagellum, which is like a rotary motor, that spins at 10,000 rotations per minute. It is attached like a drive shaft to the bacteria, with a protein that acts like a universal joint, allowing it to rotate freely. The bacterial flagellum can stop spinning within a quarter of a turn and instantly start spinning the other way at 10,000 rpms. Sounds like something that was designed by a creator, doesn’t it? (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p. 204-207)

Darwin was not aware of this detail in 1859. Darwin cannot explain how evolution could cause the bacteria to have a flagellum. To say that if evolved bit by bit makes no sense, because the flagellum doesn’t work until you have all of the complicated pieces together!

DNA has been called the blueprint for life. DNA has long lines of information, which scientists call A,C, G and T. To build just one protein, you need 1,200 to 2,000 letters of bases—which is a lot of information. Darwinism cannot explain this! Darwinism teaches that everything evolved by blind chance. But DNA is loaded with detailed information. Where does information come from? Doesn’t that indicate intelligence? (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p. 225)

The irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum, DNA, etc. was anticipated by Charles Darwin. Listen to what he said:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, as cited in the video, Unlocking the Mystery of Life.)

So when we look at the complexity of the simplest of life forms, Darwin’s theory does absolutely break down. But God’s creation is all the more evident. As Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

CONCLUSION: So here’s the bottom line: Darwinism cannot explain the first cause, Darwinism cannot explain the origin of life, Darwinism cannot explain consciousness, Darwinism cannot explain the Cambrian explosion, and Darwinism cannot explain the complexity of the simplest of life forms.

But the very first verse of the Bible can explain it all: “In the beginning God created…”

It takes more faith to be a Darwinist than to believe in a Creator!

As Romans 1:20 says, the evidence of God’s creation can be clearly seen. So that men are without excuse.

So what about you? Do you believe in the Creator? If not, what’s your excuse?

Bloodiest of Ladies said...

"Darwinism cannot explain where everything began. What is the first cause? At first, Darwinists could deny that the universe had a beginning. They could say it always existed."

This is a topic that has always sort of left me unsatisfied. First, why is it that one must be a Darwinist or a Christian? It seems as though every arguement (from either side) focuses on the faults in the other, as though it couldn't just be that we don't know.

Second, why is it that Christians always jump on the fact that Darwinists can't explain the origin with anything but 'it always was'? Is that not exactly how Christians explain the origin of God? Why can God have just always been if a ball of gases couldn't?

Bloodiest of Ladies said...

"Finally, Darwinism cannot explain how life is so extremely complex at the most basic levels."

And this is one more thing. Things are how they are because the conditions were right for things to be this way. I'm very happy about that, as I'm sure everyone else is, but I don't see how it's proof of God. If conditions had been different then things would have developed in such a way as to be workable under those conditions, and whatever kind of life (assuming there was any, and it was sentient) would be proclaiming the greatness of whatever made things that way. I'm not taking a stance on the existence of God, I'm just saying that I don't see how these arguements are at all conclusive.

Brother Bob said...

You ask why one must choose either to be a Darwinist or a Christian? It is because Darwinism claims that all causes are totally naturalistic, without need for a God, whereas Christians believe that naturalism cannot explain all things, because we believe in God. Richard Dawkins and other Darwinists, including Darwin himself, are atheists.
You ask "why can God have just always been if a ball of gases couldn't?" God is not just a ball of gas. By definition, God is the Creator and ultimate reality. As soon as something limits God, that something then becomes God and becomes the ultimate reality.

In your second comment, you seem satisfied with a naturalistic explanation for the extreme complexity of simple life forms. "Conditions were right" for it, you say. Yes, but how were the conditions made right, by chance or by a Creator? Naturalism says it just happened by chance. So Darwinists would have us believe by mere chance, the DNA in each cell has enough information to fill a large book. Common sense says that when one sees information produced, one knows that it was produced by an Intelligent Designer.

Bloodiest of Ladies said...

I'm confused again (it happens a lot). I understand the fundamentals of both Christianity and Darwinism, but neither can conclusively prove it's point. There is a wealth of inconclusive evidence, and it points in all sorts of directions. To me it seems that this is an area where people just have to decide what they believe.

I must have misspoken to give you the impression that I'm satisfied with 'conditions were right'. I'm far too curious to be satisfied with not knowing, but right now I can't KNOW so I have to choose. You're right that common sense (every time I think that I heard 'by Thomas Payne') would dictate that such complexity was created, but then common sense also had Europeans believing that there was no such thing as a black swan. It's the same on either side, or it seems to be. Darwinists say we've never seen conclusive proof of God so there must not be one and Christians say we've never seen conclusive proof of this level of natraulistic design so it must not be true. In either case it's still the assumption that we understand everything, which we so obviously don't.

Brother Bob said...

We agree that each person must look at the evidence and make a choice.
I just believe that it makes more sense to see an Intelligent Designer in the evidence.
It takes a lot of faith in amazing odds of chance to believe that it all happened by random mutation.

Bloodiest of Ladies said...

Wait, I think I've misrepresented myself. I do that a great deal. I get talking and I know what I think and mean so I assume everyone else does, even if it's something they couldn't possibly know.

Personally, I think the evidence is inconclusive. I can't make a judgement as to which I think is more likely because I don't know everything and thereby have all the evidence to weigh it out. I believe there was an intelligent designer and I believe that designer was God. I couldn't make a case for it because in my book evidence is either conclusive or it's not and if it's not no conclusion can be reached. I believe there is a God for my own reasons, largely just feeling, and since that's something I can't extend or prove to another person I can't ask anyone else to believe for my reasons.