Evolution Conversation, Part 4: Evolutionary Agnosticism

Here is part 4 of the conversation. It is lengthy, but that is only because it takes a lot of space to adequately dialogue about these issues. Here we go.

I would not describe myself as a theistic evolutionist. I'm more of an evolution agnostic: I'm not convinced that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is right. From a scientific standpoint evolution seems to me eminently reasonable. But the history of science is littered with theories once widely believed and now discarded. Moreover, I am not convinced of the supremacy of scientific understanding. Religion has insight into human behavior that science is only beginning to appreciate. Perhaps religion should be used to inform policy and put to question ALL assumptions, even those of science.

I can't pretend to speak for all Christians or even for evangelical Christians. There are plenty of Christians who are young earth creationists. They deny the claims of evolution altogether. They insist that a worldwide flood occurred in the time of Noah, that God created each species in a separate act of special creation, that dinosaurs were just overgrown lizards contemporaneous with human beings before the flood. They believe that scientists wickedly distort the evidence to support evolution and that there is a vast conspiracy in science and academia to suppress the truth of God found in the Bible. As for me, I'm especially skeptical of vast conspiracies, no matter how well-constructed. I believe that most people, scientists included, prefer uncomfortable truth to comforting delusion. I'm sympathetic to the creationists because I know how absolutely fundamental they consider the truth of God's word to be. The difference between us is that I don't regard the Genesis account as literal. I do regard it as nevertheless true.

I don't have trouble believing that God could have created the first organism, whether through special creation (God spoke and it was so), or by natural processes. I find it odd that if it was by natural processes, then the best efforts of science to duplicate those processes have so far failed. If it was a natural process, how hard can it be? Life apparently presupposes life. Not a problem for a God who is life. But for those who deny the existence of God, the problem of where life comes from remains a serious issue. I think most Christians do not have a problem with regarding humans as a species of animal. Even in Genesis, the first man is formed from the stuff of this world and looks for a companion among the animals. The problem comes from the unscientific assertion that human beings are nothing more than animals. Evolution seems to leave no room for God to breathe into the man the breath of life and make him a living soul. Perhaps, as C. S. Lewis suggests in Mere Christianity, there was a time in history when God visited one or more of our hominid ancestors and made him more than an animal. I do not know (though it would go a long way toward explaining where Cain got his wife). The problem is not that humans have an animal nature; it is that they also have spiritual nature. Christians do not wish to deny the fact that humans are animals (though many vigorously deny common ancestry). They wish to assert that humans are more. They are little gods made in the image of the one God. That image is not a physical image, for God is a spirit. It is a spiritual image. Common ancestry seems to deny this, which is why it is such a sticking point.

It may be unfair to blame evolution for social Darwinism. I don't know. But I can't help noticing that the most strident proponents of evolution are atheists. Why is that? In fact, most scientists are atheists. Why? There is nothing inherently more believable about atheism. It offers no overarching purpose for life. It offers no comfort for the bereaved. It provides no basis for ethics, law, or politics. The only relief I can see in it is that you can do what you want in life without fear of facing judgment afterward. This seems to me a wicked and selfish reason for being an atheist.

Now an atheist might respond that there is no evidence that God exists. Here we get to Paley's argument again. My point has nothing to do with complexity. We know that it requires intelligence to create a simulation of reality. As you pointed out, only people program, write, and paint. Tell me how it is credible that only people can create simulations of reality (programs, books, and paintings), yet the reality they simulate was not created? I do not contend that the complexity of reality implies design; I contend that the existence of anything at all implies a creator. In short, if there were no self-existent God, there would be nothing whatever.

By the way, where do these videos come from? They're very good, and I've never seen them before. Do you really have a video that shows how the bacterial flagellum might have evolved by single protein steps? If so, I'd like to see it. Also if so, is there any evidence for the evolution occurring as shown? In the NOVA special, they seemed to imply that having more steps between the syringe structure and the flagellum made it somehow more certain that it had evolved. That's ridiculous. The greater the number of intermediate steps, the longer it will take, but the greater the complexity of intermediate steps the less likely that they could ever happen at all. If going from syringe to flagellum requires 20 single protein steps that preserve some kind of utility for the organism, then that's believable evolution. If it requires one step involving 20 proteins, then that's impossible (or close enough to be considered miraculous).

The music was okay. I didn't really listen to it because I was engaged in reading the words, but it sounded like MXPX or POD, which are bands by kids have listened to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

An evolution agnostic? Like a gravity agnostic? I'd like to ask for clarification. Are you agnostic regarding common descent or are you agnostic in regard to the mechanism of evolution, natural selection? I can understand a position of agnosticism in regard to natural selection but common decent is a fact that can't be reasonably denied. It's equally as difficult to be reasonably agnostic toward common descent. It's like being agnostic about the Earth orbiting the Sun.

"Perhaps religion should be used to inform policy and put to question ALL assumptions, even those of science"

It would be like "The Lottery" from Shirley Jackson's short story. Not a good idea.

"But for those who deny the existence of God, the problem of where life comes remains a serious issue."

You say, "the history of science is littered with theories once widely believed and now discarded" as if that were a negative. There are many things that are unknown to science, including the origin of life. What science doesn't do is posit a God for what it can't explain; the proverbial "god of the gaps" if you will. Religions answer to the question of life's origin with, "God did it." So even if religion does have an answer where science does not, it's worthless from a "how?" standpoint because it explains nothing. Religion pretends to have the answers to this fundamental question where science doesn't. I think science takes the more humble stance. Ann Druyan makes this point much better than I do. (4 and a half minutes)


"The problem comes from the unscientific assertion that human beings are nothing more than animals."

The genetic evidence supporting common ancestry is certainly scientific and it's not an assertion, it's a fact. When you look at this picture, are you saying that the shared genetic traits aren't obvious? There is only one way for parents to pass genes to their offspring and that's through inheritance. That's common ancestry. If you believe that humans have a divine soul that other animals lack, I have no problem with that. I don't think other evolutionists do either. I hope this might ease the "God's image" sticking point you mentioned. From a psychological standpoint, I too believe that humans are different from animals. But physically, there is no point denying, we are animals.

"But I can't help noticing that the most strident proponents of evolution are atheists. Why is that? In fact, most scientists are atheists. Why? There is nothing inherently more believable about atheism. It offers no overarching purpose for life. It offers no comfort for the bereaved. It provides no basis for ethics, law, or politics. The only relief I can see in it is that you can do what you want in life without fear of facing judgment afterward. This seems to me a wicked and selfish reason for being an atheist."

Is this your personal opinion of atheism? To me, this sounds just like rhetoric I've heard a million times before. I'll address this if it bothers you. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

"I do not contend that the complexity of reality implies design; I contend that the existence of anything at all implies a creator."

This is also an old argument. Usually it goes, the big bang theory says the universe came from nothing and it's impossible for something to come from nothing. This is a conundrum of causation. Simply put, "Which came first? The Chicken? Or, the egg?" Until science is able to formulate a unified theory of gravity that reconciles general relativity with quantum theory, science can't explain. You mentioned that you read Stephen Hawking's, "A brief History of Time?" Paging through my copy, the quest of a unified theory of gravity is the overarching theme of his book. But again, religion posits "God did it" for what it can't explain. The God of the gaps lives again.

"By the way, where do these videos come from?"

I was trying to explain to creationists that the Earth is older than 6000 years when I stumbled upon this gem. It's so elegant and simple. (5 minutes)


You can find the rest of cdk007's videos here. The flagellum video is there too.

I liked that last video, but be careful! The song will get in your head and not leave!

Your thoughts on the conversation so far?