Evolution Conversation, Part 3: The Nature of Humanity

Here is part 3 of this conversation. The conversation picks up assuming you have wathced the video from part 2, so be sure to catch up before you read this one. My comments follow the entries.

I'm afraid I may be a bit of a disappointment for you. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think young earth creationism squares at all well with observable facts. Even if you doubt radiometric dating (which I do not), you can go to Greenland and dig up ice cores from the glaciers there where snow has been falling for thousands of years. The snow forms annual layers in the ice, something like the rings of a tree. You can see the layers with the naked eye. and, if you have enough patience, you can count the layers going back 50,000 years. If the earth was created only 6-10 thousand years ago, then God must have made it with a history (much as a novelist gives a backstory to his characters). Such a position is not and cannot be scientific. It supposes that God made the world 6,000 years ago but gave us no evidence that allows us to verify it. Without evidence there is nothing for science to work on. I think the earth is about 5 billion years old. That squares well with the evidence.

By faith I understand that the universe and everything in it was created by God. I do not insist, however, on a particular method for creation. I do not understand Genesis literally any more than I understand Psalm 139:13 as a literal knitting together. David speaks of having been created despite knowing that he was born through natural processes. In the same way, I believe every human being is uniquely created by God by means of natural processes. Science may describe these processes in great detail but cannot provide a clue to their purpose. In a sense, therefore, I have no problem with evolution considered purely as a natural process. It may be the means by which God chooses to create living things.

However, evolution is rarely presented in this pure form. It is almost always part of a broader worldview that is essentially antithetical to Christian beliefs. It is in this context, I think, that Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians, find themselves opposed to evolution. If evolutionists want to persuade Christians instead of marginalizing and alienating them, then they need to lay aside their own antireligious biases and show respect for the Christian beliefs that are NOT in conflict with evolution. Here are some of the problems:

1. The question of origins. While I agree that abiogenesis is not essential to evolution, it almost always accompanies it. If natural processes are all there are (i. e., God did not purposely create life), then life must have arisen from non-living matter. There simply is no alternative. And pushing the problem to another planet is not a solution.

2. The uniqueness of humans. Christian doctrine sees human beings as unique in many respects. They are made in the image of God, meaning that they have a spiritual component that outlasts their physical life. They are capable of good and evil and have fallen from their original innocence, so that their nature is fundamentally flawed. They are incapable of perfection and in need of redemption. Evolution, by contrast, sees human beings as descended from animal ancestors. They are not unique except in terms of their greater capabilities to reason and express complex ideas, build complex structures, and wonder about their own purpose. In a purely natural universe, good and evil have no meaning, and human beings are no more fallen than hummingbirds.

3. Social Darwinism. The impact of Darwinism quickly moved far beyond biological science. It became the justification for repugnant social policies, including racial and ethnic cleansing and eugenics. Though I generally hate arguments that play the Nazi card---want to vilify your opponent? Call him a Nazi, or show that he is associated with Nazis---the fact is that the Nazi concept of the master race owes much of its credibility to social Darwinism. Though social Darwinism has fallen into disrepute, I don't think any positive good ever came of it. (Of course, the notion that we can somehow help evolution along presupposes a goal for evolution that coincides with our own goals).

I found the evolving clocks in the linked video very entertaining. I have a couple of comments. One of the arguments often advanced in favor of evolution is that it works in computer simulations like this one. Years ago I even wrote an evolutionary simulation myself. However, such arguments tend to ignore a basic fact: the entire process is designed to produce a particular outcome. In the case of the evolving clocks, the criterion for survival imposed by the programmer was accuracy in keeping time. So, of course, the solutions converged on accurate clocks. The programmer also had to decide what accuracy could mean in the early stages of the evolution when the 'clocks' were too rudimentary to keep time. These constraints are all imposed from outside the system. Put another way, the existence of a program implies a programmer. I could go on: the existence of a book implies an author; the existence of a painting implies an artist; the existence of a universe implies a creator.

I noted, however, that the transitions from one clock 'species' to another were quite sudden. This I found interesting because it may help explain the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record. I'm not saying I find the demonstration convincing, but it is compelling.

Mark responds, and his way of responding is to quote Chip and respond directly to what Chip said. I have italicized his quotes of Chip, but left them in tact for clarity. They follow the color scheme that Chip has had throughout.


I believe every human being is uniquely created by God by means of natural processes... I have no problem with evolution considered purely as a natural process."

I'd say your beliefs are similar to those of theistic evolutionists. This is so refreshing! I'm used to dealing with outright denial. In response I'll say, I have no problem with the belief of evolution as a process that's guided by God. Science is concerned with the natural not the supernatural. Where I tend to balk is when I encounter people who use their faith to suppress sound scientific results while making public policy. Global warming, stem cell research, abstinence only AIDS prevention, for example. In such cases, science should be used to inform policy and put to question ALL assumptions, religion's included.

"1. The question of origins. While I agree that abiogenesis is not essential to evolution, it almost always accompanies it. If natural processes are all there are (i. e., God did not purposely create life), then life must have arisen from non-living matter. There simply is no alternative."

Well, when you say, "I believe every human being is uniquely created by God by means of natural processes" is it really that great a leap to believe that God created the first microscopic life form through natural processes as well? I guess I still don't see the connection between evolution and abiogenesis. In "The Origin of Species," Darwin hypothesized that all living organisms originated from one or a few common ancestors. I may be mistaken, but I don't recall Darwin ever speculating on how or why this common ancestor came into being. Maybe evolution is getting a bad rap from abiogenesis as you claim, but I think the core objection theists have resides with common ancestry, which is your second point, not abiogenesis.

"2. ...Evolution, by contrast, sees human beings as descended from animal ancestors. They are not unique except in terms of their greater capabilities to reason and express complex ideas, build complex structures, and wonder about their own purpose. In a purely natural universe, good and evil have no meaning, and human beings are no more fallen than hummingbirds."

In fact, evolution views humans as another species of animal; ape to be precise. I don't think there is anything that can be done about alienating Christians when it comes to this. Personally, I have to acknowledge this as a fact. A fact is a fact. It's not that science and evolution have an "anti-religious bias." It's that science and evolution present a fact, a truth about reality, that Christian doctrine has a very difficult time dealing with. Though dealing with the fact that humans are animals is difficult, I don't think it's possible to reasonably deny it. It's not reasonable to deny any fact. If one does, it's denying reality which is the definition of delusion. I'll try to offer some comfort in this quote from British Prime Minister William E. Gladstone (1809-1898)...

"...if pride causes us to deem it an indignity that our race should have proceeded by propagation from an ascending scale of inferior organisms, why should it be a more repulsive idea to have sprung immediately from something less than man in brain and body, than to have been fashioned according to the expression in Genesis (Chap. II., v. 7), "out of the dust of the ground?" There are halls and galleries of introduction in a palace, but none in a cottage; and this arrival of the creative work at its climax through an ever aspiring preparatory series, rather than by transition at a step from the inanimate mold of the earth, may tend to magnify than to lower the creation of man on its physical side."

"3. Social Darwinism. The impact of Darwinism quickly moved far beyond biological science. It became the justification for repugnant social policies, including racial and ethnic cleansing and eugenics."

Much like I don't think it's fair to blame all the misuses of religion upon religion as a whole, I don't think it's fair to blame evolution for it's corruptions either. Evolution, like all solid scientific theories is morally neutral. Evolution explains common ancestry. Atomic theory explains fusion within stars. Is it fair to blame atomic theory itself, or Niels Bohr, for applications like the A-bomb? I'd also point out that eugenics is an ancient concept practiced by the Spartans who would throw any sickly babies off a cliff, the Apothetae, if they didn't meet the Spartan ideal. Life unworthy of life was practiced 2300 years before the Nazis, yet Christians blame Darwin?

"The abandonment of sick, puny and misshapen children by the Spartans was more humanitarian and, in reality, a thousand times more humane than the pitiful madness of our present time where the most sickly subjects are preserved at any price only to be followed by the breeding of a race from degenerates burdened with disease." - Adolf Hitler

"Put another way, the existence of a program implies a programmer. I could go on: the existence of a book implies an author; the existence of a painting implies an artist; the existence of a universe implies a creator."

Again, this is William Paley's old argument rehashed with programs, paintings, and books instead of watches.

The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer.
As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.
The video went to great pains to show that this does not necessarily follow. It explicitly stated why this analogy is a straw man. Unlike living things, clocks, programs, books, and paintings, don't reproduce, don't mutate, and aren't subject to natural selection. We know that the existence of a program implies a programmer, the existence of a book implies an author, the existence of a painting implies a painter because WE KNOW only people program, write, and paint (exception: elephants can paint like Jackson Pollack and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference). We DON'T KNOW that the complexity of life implies a supernatural designer. It's just been demonstrated that even something as complex as life happened through evolution. "You may argue that life is more complex than a clock. Any biologist will agree. But remember, you thought the clock [program, book, painting] was complex enough to construct this straw man in the first place. You can't have it both ways."

"However, such arguments tend to ignore a basic fact: the entire process is designed to produce a particular outcome. In the case of the evolving clocks, the criterion for survival imposed by the programmer was accuracy in keeping time. So, of course, the solutions converged on accurate clocks."

In the wild, instead of evolving clocks we'd have evolving organisms. The criterion for survival would be imposed by nature instead of imposed by the programmer. The solutions would converge on things like ability to avoid predators, ability to mate, finding food, etc. instead of solutions that converge on accurate clocks.

I need to interject. At this point, Mark begins referring to an episode of NOVA about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution that was on a few weeks ago and that all three of us watched. The main conversation followeing the video revolved around the arguement of Irreducable Complexity. Mark is responding to the Irreducible Complexity arguement here.

At this point Chip, I wanted to talk about your email regarding the NOVA program, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on trial." There is a reason Judge John Jones ruled Intelligent Design to be unscientific. In an effort to keep this email at a reasonable length, I beg your indulgence in watching another video which I think directly addresses your comments, and in fact, turns your assertion, "The concept of irreducible complexity is an important one and played a role in criticisms of evolution long before ID" completely on it's head.

The Evolution of Irreducible Complexity (6 minutes)


P.S. I apologize for the music. It's my style but maybe not yours. :)

We are really rolling now, and we have perhaps gotten to our first irreconcilable difference between Chip and Mark: the nature of humanity. Are we more evolved apes? Are we special in a significant way, beyong our resoning capabilities?

Your thoughts?