BirkeyBlog

Fazale Rana writes in the March/April 2008 edition of the Reasons to Believe Newsletter that evolutionists and creationists agree that the earth’s “garden” (plant life) has changed dramatically over time. The questions is on the “how.” Darwinists propose that it happened slowly in spontaneous response to external and internal environment changes via natural selection and mutations. But this theory doesn’t seem to fit with what we now know from the fossil record.

Scientists like Stephen J. Gould have modified the theory to propose a “punctuated equilibrium” theory to better fit the fossil record. This view states that life changed in sudden spurts, followed by long periods of little or no change. These proponents say that small groups of species became isolated and that change occurred rapidly as they responded to their new environments and conditions.

The University of Oregon challenged this notion by doing theoretical work that showed the isolation and adaptation process at the core of “punctuated equilibrium” leads to extinction, not evolution. Field workers from Washington University have more recently confirmed this conclusion by studying collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks. They found that an isolated group is more likely to die off than adapt and survive.

In conclusion, the evolutionary view faces two major problems. It lacks corroboration from the fossil record, and the punctuated equilibrium version lacks a legitimate mechanism. In light of the absence of naturalistic explanations, it seems only reasonable that science should consider all options, including the possibility of an “intelligent designer.” The “scientific method” is by definition based on gathering evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. It pursues the “truth” without bias, no matter where it leads.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

My wife and I went and saw the newly released movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” last night, and I’ve got to say it is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time. We had not heard about it before yesterday, and we knew very little about what it was about. It just sounded more interesting than anything else playing. It turned out to be not only interesting, but also entertaining, thought-provoking, and it actually draws you in like a good drama with a compelling plot and interesting characters. Yet, it’s a documentary!

Ben Stein is a well-known actor, comedian, speech writer, syndicated columnist, economist, lawyer, professor and TV game show host, author, commentator and financial adviser - to name just a few of his accomplishments.

In recent years Ben has taken on “Big Science” and what he calls the Darwinian Evolutionists establishment, charging them with suppressing free and open scientific inquiry, and persecuting those who do not toe the line in the politically correct academic environment.

As Ben writes on his blog: “America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.”

Of course there are critics in the media and in the scientific community who claim the movie is propaganda, or just a sleazy cover for creationism. This will no doubt continue as the film gains more viewers in the coming weeks and months.

I particularly enjoyed the interviews with Richard Dawkins, John Lennox and Alister McGrath because of my personal connection with Oxford, England having studied there with the Zacharias Trust in the summer of 2006. I heard lectures from both Alister and John, and heard other lectures in a lecture room down the hall from Richard Dawkin’s office.

My hunch on this film is that most people who have thought about these issues before will either love the film or hate it depending on their pre-existing worldview. However, I think there is a large number of people in the middle, who are not aware of there being a growing “issue” with Darwinian Evolution, nor the growing Intelligent Design movement within the scientific community. This movie will be the first exposure to the issue for most people. For this reason alone, I personally think it is fantastic… even if all it does is get people aware and thinking about it, and asking questions.

The scientific method is based upon free, open and honest inquiry. I don’t see how anyone who understands this should have a problem with an open debate between Darwin’s theory of Evolution, and the proponents of Intelligent Design. Let’s have an open, fair fight and may the best theory win!

Watch the official movie trailer:

All I can say is to go see the movie and draw your own conclusion.

Last night at 7 PM Chicago time, a debate was broadcast on Moody Radio Network between Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” and John Lennox, professor of Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, both at Oxford University, England. Dawkins is considered one of the leading intellectuals in science today, and a spokesman for the “New Atheism.”

The debate was held at The Alys Stephens Center at the University of Alabama, and was sponsored by a group called Fixed Point Foundation. I heard about the debate from my brother Barry, and also saw it advertised in Christianity Today magazine.

The debate was positioned to center on Dawkins’ views as expressed in his book, and their validity over and against the Christian faith. Lennox is a well-know Christian apologist, and has written a rebuttal to Dawkins’ book entitled: “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” Dawkins was given the first and last words for the evening debate out of “Christian charity” as the host humorously noted.

I was able to listen to the first 30 minutes before attending a previous commitment. In that time I heard introductions of the speakers by the moderator, and a 5 minute biography introduction by each debater.

I plan to purchase the DVD of the event through the Fixed Point website as soon as it is available. I’ll do a more detailed analysis after viewing that.

What I found personally interesting is that when I was in Oxford in 2006 for the RZIM Summer School (see my 2006 Summer School Posts), John Lennox was one of the lecturers that I heard on a daily basis. We also heard our evening lectures from Ravi Zacharias and other RZIM speakers, in the British Museum of Natural History, where Richard Dawkins has his office.

Kind of ironic!

Oak Park is the community where I live and we have 2 local weekly newspapers. On October 26th, 2005 the Wednesday Journal ran an open letter from a local resident, which read:

An open letter to my religious brethren on intelligent design

To my evangelical friends:

Why not consider evolution to be God’s concept of intelligent design?

To deem such a thought as invalid is to restrict the magnificence of our Almighty Creator. And certainly it would be blasphemous to claim to know the mind of God.

Unless we believe that Jonah literally survived the juices of the belly of the whale, then we must recognize the allegorical beauty of the Bible.

Allegory teaches us theological and moral truth in a way that stimulates both the intellect and the imagination. We need not take things literally to know there truth.

So too, the Bible … an incredibly revelatory book when read with a biot of insight and imagination.

Your liberal friend,

Paul Moroney
Oak Park

I don’t know why Mr. Moroney decided to write this letter at this particular point in time. Maybe his concern has something to do with the ID vs. Evolution cases in other states that have been in the news recently? - I’m not sure.

Based upon his letter, apparently Mr. Moroney thinks that it is “evangelicals” who are leading the crazy questioning of evolution. Otherwise, why address this to evangelicals? And what’s with the “liberal friend” thing — Is this a political issue? Is he not aware that it is the scientific community itself that is leading the way in questioning Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Here are some facts for Mr. Moroney to deal with:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

“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.”

“Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology,” says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York’s best doctors by New York Magazine.

“We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others,” added Egnor. “The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically if random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things.”

“More scientists than ever before are now standing up and saying that it is time to rethink Darwin’s theory of evolution in light of new scientific evidence that shows the theory is inadequate,” said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinists are busy making up holidays to turn Charles Darwin into a saint, even as the evidence supporting his theory crumbles and more and more scientific challenges to it emerge.”

The list of signatories includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

Darwin’s Black Box

Has Mr. Moroney even read the pivotal book by Dr. Michael Behe called “Darwin’s Black Box,” in which he put forth his theory of irreducible complexity? This book and theory had nothing to do with evangelicals or religion. Dr. Behe was looking at the claims of Darwinian evolution, and noting how it did not fit with his scientific observance at the microbiological level.

As one of the “evangelicals” that Mr. Moroney is addressing in his open letter, I simply respond with… “Why should I consider (the theory of) evolution as God’s concept of intelligent design, when (the theory of) evolution itself does not hold up under rigorous scientific scrutiny?”

Pursuit of Truth is the Scientific Method

We evangelicals believe that all truth is God’s truth. We don’t claim to know everything, regardless of how the media portrays us. We actually like science, and believe Christians ought to be involved in science. In fact, as a group we have made many important contributions to science! We happen to think that evolution should be put to the test, just as intelligent design, global warming and any other scientific theory should. We are all about discovering the truth. The issue with evolution vs. intelligent design has nothing to do with religion or God. After all, even if Intelligent Design were to become a widely held theory, it would not answer the question of — WHO was the intelligent designer?

The manner in which some people get so defensive about their beloved Darwin and his theory, makes you wonder who is really interested in discovering truth. Why would someone want to blindly continue to defend a worn out, increasingly suspect theory from the Victorian era? What’s wrong with questioning evolution?

Darwinian Evolution as Religion

Mr. Moroney and others like him have based their worldview squarely upon Darwinian evolution. When something comes along that threatens that worldview, they get all shaky. This response is not very scientific. The scientific method keeps an open mind, and is willing to continually look for truth based upon the evidence. It is always challenging presuppositions, and seeking to break down the ways of thinking that are blinders. I don’t see much of that going on here.

Instead, Mr. Moroney’s letter reads an awful lot like the response you get from a person who holds blindly and firmly to a religious belief and you start asking some probing and challenging questions. The similarity in response is so striking that I would theorize that many people have made Darwinian Evolution their religion, and can’t face the possibility they might be wrong. Sadly, I’m afraid this is what the open letter is really all about.

Mr. Moroney… if you are out there, I welcome your response. Please let me know what is so solid about evolution that should stop me from questioning it’s scientific basis. And, let me know what my being an “evangelical” has to do with it.

Your “evangelical” neighbor,

Randy