True Horizon

Christopher Hitchens is at it again. Weighing in at Slate Magazine (here) about his own “eureka moment” (his description) regarding evolution that has further ensconced his inability to “grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design”

It is amazing to me that a man of his intellectual aptitude and interest in this specific topic would describe his brand new revelation as a eureka moment and scurry off to inform us all about it.

For starters, the blind salamander (Eurycea (Typhlomolge) rathbuni) was placed on the endangered species list in 1967. That’s right, Christopher Hitchens’ “eureka moment” stems from a discovery that is at least 41 year-old news. I understand the definition of a “eureka moment,” but if Hitchens is as smart and motivated as he claims be about proving the gross stupidity of those of us who believe the design argument, it seems that he would have considered this old news long before now. Of course, that observation has nothing to do with his claim — I just find it interesting.

Second, Hitchens acts as if the stupid creationists deny evolution takes place, and that they would also defend the idea that an all-powerful God would create a blind salamander. But that is not what any creationist is saying!

I honestly do not know a single creationist who denies that adaptation (which would be defined as micro-evolution) takes place within species. But, once again blurring the definition of “evolution” to make his case, Hitchens wants us to accept that obvious fact as proof that salamanders can, and do, change via such adaptations into something other than salamanders.

How?

Where is the evidence for that claim?

Third, the more substantial problem that Hitchens is blind to (pun intended) is the inability for a purely materialistic explanation to account for the incredibly high information content that exists in the DNA of even the simplest living things. We have no other example anywhere in the world where blind, undirected processes create new information. And that is the real point that Hitchens seems to miss.

It is not just the existence of information — it is the claim that evolution is capable of adding information to the DNA of living systems that is in question. For a seeing salamander to evolve into a sightless salamander entails a loss of information in the salamander’s DNA. No one disputes that such a thing could happen. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics demands that this be the case.

What Hitchens must explain is the evolution of sightless salamanders (or anything else) into seeing salamanders (or anything else) — a process that entails the addition of information to the DNA of the system and therefore defies the second law of thermodynamics. That is the question that Christopher Hitchens needs to recognize as being worthy of constituting a “eureka moment.”

One thing you can say about Hitchens is that he is most definitely not stupid. That being the case, there must be some explanation for his missing such elementary concepts as these. If we know that he is intellectually capable of grasping the importance of these questions, the only explanation is that he refuses to consider the answers to them before he goes about asking.

Or, to put it another way, none are so blind as those who will not see.

Just a quick blurb to point out a couple of recent articles that should cause the naturalistic science folks to have “some ’splainin’ to do.” These kinds of things pop up every once in a while and it is interesting to consider the explanations they offer for discoveries like these.

For instance, yesterday The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science announced the recent discovery of:

a primitive single-celled microbe that answers to the name of Monosiga brevicollis [that] has a leg up on animals composed of billions of cells. It commands a signaling network more elaborate and diverse than found in any multicellular organism …

This treasure trove of diverse and novel tyrosine kinases took the study’s lead author … by surprise since it was long thought that tyrosine kinases are restricted to multicellular animals where they handle communication between cells.

When the only paradigm by which the scientists are allowed to consider finds like this is the naturalistic paradigm, those who study them are constantly surprised — and they should be. Pure mechanistic processes cannot account for information rich systems like this one. While they cavalierly mention the ability of cells to “communicate with each other,” it is easy to forget the blatantly obvious mystery that goes with having purely physical systems which have obtained such an ability.

The naturalistic paradigm demands that first life was a simple, single-celled organism that later evolved to complex, multi-cellular organisms. But here we have a highly complex, single-celled organism that seems to be capable of assembling a sensor structure meant to handle complex, widespread communication issues. How so? A candid scientist weighs in on that question:

With all this new information, one obvious question remains unanswered: what is a single-celled organism doing with all this communications gear? “We don’t have a clue!”

At least they admit it. But what some cosmologists won’t admit is the incredible fine-tuning that had to go into the universe just to allow us to exist at all. This article, which just posted on Space.com, addresses why cosmologists keep being blown away by how unique the Earth actually is in its uncanny and unmatched ability to support and sustain complex life.

I don’t have the room of the time now to start listing all the factors that have to be “just right” to allow us to be here. But I would suggest two books that address these issues in eye-opening depth. The first is Rare Earth, by paleontologist Peter Ward and astronomer Donald Brownlee. The authors make the case that it is entirely possible that we are on the only complex life sustaining planet in the universe. And though they (rightly) offer no theological inferences in their book, one doesn’t have to use their imagination too much to see them.

Less trapped by their worldview, authors Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, in their bestseller, Privileged Planet are not only comfortable with making such a claim to divine design of our home planet, they take it a step further. They make a strong case that the factors which allow us to be here also do double duty as factors that allow us the ability and viewpoint from which we can discover how unique we really are in the universe. The correlation will shock you — especially when you consider that there is no reason for it to be that way.

I would recommend either (preferably both) books for some enjoyable summer beach reading. The stars and galaxies you look up at on vacation this summer may awe you even more after having done so.

[Editor’s Note: This would also serve a dual, and not insignificant role, in diverting you from the temptation to pick a book from the Oprah’s Book Club List. Nothing intentional … I’m just sayin’]

The final Evolution as Mythology post is up (here). Please take the time to read it. This has been a fantastic series of articles by some serious experts and each is definitely worth taking the time to read. I will offer a quick summary here but that alone does not do this series of articles justice. This is the kind of information every serious Christian should have stored in the immediate access area of their brain. If you can remember nothing else, remember these three points:

Evolution is no different from any other myth

A myth may be true or false, but its principle characteristic is that it validates the thinking, practices, and ideals of a culture. Evolution explains our existence within the framework of our modern culture of naturalism, which has no need for a god. A myth cannot be proved, or disproved, with the technology of the culture; a myth requires faith.

In this case, it requires faith to buy into the unrepeatable requirement for abiogenesis, the elusive wishfulness that goes with panspermia (of any variety), or the baseless assertion of macro-Evolution is a “fact.” Like any other myth, Evolution requires the true believer to suspend disbelief in order to accept it.

Evolution is not falsifiable

… and therefore disqualifies itself as a scientific theory.

For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to devise a controlled test such that a negative result proves the theory false. But no such test exists for evolution because it is based on unrepeatable, once-in-a-lifetime random occurrences that can therefore “explain” anything.

By definition, Evolution cannot predict future results and its theorists use circular reasoning to morph it into anything they need it to be. Want it to be gradualistic? Ignore the actual fossil evidence and demand that a vast majority of the fossil evidence must have been destroyed. Want it to attempt to explain the fossil evidence? Adopt punctuated equilibrium even if doing so requires Evolution to act exactly opposite the way the actual theory is proposed. Indeed, the only way the actual scientific evidence supports Evolution is if one assumes the theory is true before he/she evaluates the evidence in question.

View Evolution as a Religion

… some scientists are beginning to view Darwinism in the same way others view religion. After all, it has a prophet (Charles Darwin), a priesthood, and a secret body of knowledge. Science historian Marjorie Grene says, “It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men’s minds… . Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.”

This is a point that we must hammer home again and again. While the “new atheists” and their ilk demean the religious faithful as an army of mind-numbed regurgitators of thoughtless dogma; they are in fact, practicing the same kind of religion under a different name. It is ironic that those who doubt Darwinism are the only ones who seem capable of engaging their minds enough to recognize its flaws.

Many scientists rightly tire of arguing with thoughtless Christians who reject science as a godless enterprise in which the “Pure In Faith” have no reason to engage. It is a sad truth that too many Christians choose that view. But for those who have no fear of any aspect of God’s revelation to man, science is an exciting looking glass that lets us peer into the order and intricacy of the Creator’s beautiful mind. It reveals his character and the depth of love he must have for us to create so elaborate a place for us to live and discover him. There is no justification for avoiding a discovery like that. We kid ourselves if we deny it; just as the Evolutionists kid themselves in constructing the elaborate myth they need to remove the Creator from view.

Evolution may be man-made myth. But, as C. S. Lewis said, Christianity is the myth come true.

Faith Is Not Thoughtless
Assertion: Dawkins offers into evidence (The God Delusion, pp.16-17) further proof of his assertion that the faithful are unthinking by quoting a letter written to Albert Einstein by the president of a historical society in New Jersey that “so damningly exposes the weakness of the religious mind, it is worth reading twice:”

Response: I fully agree with Dawkins’ critique of the letter in question! When the writer claims that “everyone knows religion is based on Faith, not knowledge,” then goes on to describe how he never admits his religious doubts for fear of “…disturb[ing] and damag[ing] the life and hopes of some fellow human being…,” I am on Dawkins’ side when he says that the letter “drips with intellectual and moral cowardice”(17). It does. The letter writer admits that he is not pursuing the truth. He is pursuing a self-serving piousness that I also believe is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Although the letter writer may represent a large portion of the faith community, he does not represent those who vehemently deny that religion is based on blind faith and not on knowledge.

He does not represent me.

Though the letter writer rolls over and plays dead regarding the reality of the epistemological basis for faith, I do not. He does not represent those who believe that faith is a trust that can comes from knowledge based on evidence. Once again, Mr. Dawkins is cherry-picking his opponents. Doing so relegates him to the same intellectually and morally vacuous position as those he so condescendingly condemns.

In this installment of the Myth of Evolution, the authors delve into the differences between micro-evolution (adaptation) and macro-Evolution. Here are the definitions they offer of each:

Microevolution (n): Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Macroevolution (n): Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

As I have discussed before, the former is not controversial while the latter has no evidential support. But in the Evolutionary Mythology, the former must lead to the latter. That is the crux of the theory. Intermediary fossils should offer us a historical picture of just how this occurred.

If this tree of life grew as claimed, we should find literally billions upon billions of “intermediate” forms of life fossilized all over the Earth. The patterns we would expect to uncover should show barely detectable differences in body forms as plants and animals made the minute transformation between their original and current forms. Not only so, but the pattern formed by those billions of fossils should also reveal the equally minute transformation of life from the simplest form (originating in the “warm little pond”) to the most complex advanced life we are surrounded by today (you).

So what do we find? In the 150 years since Darwin proposed this idea, the lack of transitional fossil evidence is the most glaring deficiency in Evolutionary Theory. There simply isn’t any. Though Darwinian devotees are quick to run some of their “missing links” up the media flagpole, the examples they use are lame to insufficient.

Or, as Phillip Johnson puts it, “…if Evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for [Macro]-evolution.” (Darwin on Trial, 50)

Henry, Dyke and Cruz offer a compelling discussion about the distinctions between these ideas that is well worth the read. A summary of their observation is that: “the simple truth is that there is no hard evidence for macroevolution; it is inferred by extrapolating microevolution over geological ages. Yet this inference is questionable.” And, once again, the most damning evidence against the myth of Evolution comes from the scientists themselves:

Even when he originally proposed this notion, Julian Huxley observed: “It must be admitted that the … proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.”

And the same is true today. Zoologist Pierre-P. Grassé claims: “to insist … that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion is an unfounded supposition which … (is) not in accordance with the facts.”

Biologist Lynn Margulis says, “I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.”

Now, I have bantered with Evolutionists who avoid this distinction by claiming that there is no “magical point” where microevolution stops and macroEvolution begins. This is a credible rejoinder in theory but the facts are these:

1) There is no evidence for naturally occurring change of the magnitude required for macroEvolution, even in intelligently driven experimentation. For example, dog breeding may produce some wildly varying types of dogs but it has never resulted in something that wasn’t a dog!

2) Where species-altering mutations do result in significant changes to an organism, those changes are always detrimental to its survivability.

Despite the mythological claims of the Evolutionists to the contrary, the actual scientific evidence (that inconvenient little detail that is too-often ignored) does not support the myth of macro-Evolution.

Deciphering Dawkins 

As promised earlier, this is the first (of many) rebuttals to the so-called “New Atheists.” I will try to keep them short and sweet, citing a quote or argument from their book(s), complete with a page number for reference. I will then attempt a response. Your comments are welcome …

Assertion: (The God Delusion, p. 4) “…delusion [is] ‘a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder’. The first part [of this definition] captures faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig … when he said, ‘When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.’ … Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument.”

Response: On what basis does Mr. Dawkins separate himself from the possibility of being likewise deluded? Yes, there are people for whom faith is a blindly accepted belief devoid of the need for evidence. Likewise, there are atheists, apparently like Mr. Dawkins, who fully admit that they could never be convinced of the existence of God, regardless of evidence produced to the contrary. Is it too much to ask that, instead of mischaracterizing the position of his opponents, Mr. Dawkins would instead engage the arguments of those who do not accept their faith blindly? Can Mr. Dawkins offer an example of what amount of evidence it would take to convince him to change his belief? Some like him claim that no amount of evidence would convince them — proving that their atheism is not intellectually based, but rather volitionally or emotionally based.

I would also offer that many who profess atheism could likewise be accused of suffering from a psychological disorder stemming from the absence or abuse of the father figure in their lives (see: Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless). If it is acceptable to see religion as a compensatory psychological disorder, fair play would demand that atheism should also be subjected to the same test.

As discussed in the first installment of this series, all myths contain a creation narrative meant to explain how life got going. Evolution is no different. In the case of Evolution, the creation myth is entitled: “Abiogenesis.” In this post, Henry, Dyke and Cruze summarize not only the ridiculous improbabilities associated with abiogenesis, but the utter lack of evidence that it did, or ever could, occur at all — regardless of the probability.

This is a crucial issue, even to those sympathetic to the theistic worldview. Many Christians despise the idea of an old Earth in general, or the Big Bang in particular, because they believe that to accept either of these is to capitulate to an anti-Biblical science simply to allow Evolution enough time to “get going.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem with Evolution, as this post points out, is not that it needs enough time to get going, but that it lacks a mechanism to ever get going at all. I have mentioned this before (here), but the authors put specific numbers on the problem of the origin of life from non-life.

cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10^-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment. To put this into perspective: a 10^-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!

For reference, mathematicians define an impossibility as something with a probability of less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power. But cytochrome c is a simple structure. The simplest self-sustaining life form must consist of 1500 to 2000 gene products, each of them more complex than a simple cytochrome c. The authors provide even more mind blowing confirmation about the ridiculous improbability of abiogenesis in their article but, as is always the case, hard core naturalists cannot back down from their appeal to abiogenesis because, for pure Darwinian Evolution to get started, abiogenesis must be true. Just because it’s unlikely (no matter how unimaginably unlikely), that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. To which the authors refer us to the work of Trevors and Abel with respect to the incredible complexity of the genetic code:

Could the genetic code have been spontaneously generated? Biologists J. T. Trevors and D. L. Abel conclude: “The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set and language system could have arisen. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction. No amount of time proposed thus far, can explain this type of conceptual communication system. It is not just complex. It is conceptually complex.”

All this has led one researcher to conclude:

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 be satisfied to get it going.

A Creationist conclusion you ask? Oh no. That quote is from no one other than Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule and one of the most ardent proponents of Darwinian Evolution and abiogenesis you will ever find.

A miracle? I think in this case I would be glad to agree with Dr. Crick.

To piggyback off this post, I have decided to start a series of short responses to the claims of the so-called “New Atheists.” Interestingly, the story I cited (here) about the impact of the September 11th attacks on the faith of some is directly related to a phenomenon that literally sprung to life on 9/12/2001 — the aggressive attack by these new atheists on the concept of God and the legitimacy of religion. Case in point:

… 9/11 seems to belie the notion of an all-loving, all-powerful God. Sam Harris began writing The End of Faith, his best-selling attack on religion, the day after the attacks.

Jonathan Miller, who wrote and narrated a 2004 BBC series on atheism, says that given the hijackers’ militant Islamist theology, 9/11 would have been “inconceivable without religion.”

Harris later wrote a Letter To A Christian Nation — a stinging diatribe about the danger that religion of any kind, but Christianity in particular, poses toward civil society. During the years that have followed we have been treated to several books that take up the banner of atheism with a renewed vigor and a take-no-prisoners attitude.

Christopher Hitchens weighed in with his God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. For a fascinating review of that book go (here) and read what Hitchens’ brother Peter has to say about some of the claims he makes and the source of the scathing attitude Christopher brings to the debate. Hitchens is a hard core atheist who “hates God.” This is not my assessment of his view. It is something he is comfortable proclaiming for himself. It is his belief that religion is the source of most of the problems we have in this world.

Finally, there is Richard Dawkins, a zoologist and evolutionary biologist who turned from a deep religious belief in his youth to become Darwinism’s (and atheism’s) most vocal proponent. His book, The God Delusion, spent many weeks on the NY Times bestseller list and was instrumental in his being sought out as an interviewee in the Intelligent Design movement’s new documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Some of his answers in that film are shocking to hear — especially when you consider them in contrast to his arguments against intelligent design.

These are not the only atheists who have jumped on the anti-God bandwagon but they are the most popular. Each of them is intelligent, clever, and unapologetic in their disgust for religious ideas. Both Hitchens and Dawkins are arrogantly antagonistic in the way they approach the subject. Hitchens in particular is nasty in debates and frequently resorts to profanity and/or sarcasm to belittle his opponents. Dawkins won’t debate anyone from the ID or Creationist camps (which, in his mind, constitute one-in-the-same thing) because he believes that doing so would lend them credibility they in no way deserve.

Last summer I made it my mission to read each of their books. What struck me as I did so was the utter vacuousness of some of the arguments these guys use. It amazed me how people who are so highly educated and intelligent can be so lacking in their assessments of, and arguments against, spiritual issues. I think this fact shows that their opposition to religious ideas is not as rooted in intellectualism as they would like to believe. Instead it betrays their real problems with religion and God as being volitional and emotional.

With that as a backdrop I intend to begin a regular series of short rebuttals to some of the arguments they pose in their books. I plan to keep these short (as best I can) and to the point. Hopefully these will help offer quick rebuttals to those who may be using the same arguments against you.

[Note: For a lively, in-depth discussion of the so-called “New Atheists” that you can listen to as you drive to work, I suggest Greg Koukl’s, “The New Atheists: Old Arguments, New Attitude.” You can order it from him here.]

Though you may not have known it, and though you will be chastised for saying it, feel free to go here to find out about the myth that Evolution is a scientific theory. It’s not. As Henry, Dyke and Cruze point out …

Science is usually defined by a process called the scientific method. Typically, this includes an observation about a natural phenomenon, a hypothesis formulated to explain it, and a test performed via a controlled experiment. If the test results are not as expected, the hypothesis may be revised and retested (feedback).

The problem(s) with Evolution as a scientific theory is that it is not predictive or falsifiable, at least in the sense that other scientific theories are. Science is the study of natural causes and effects. In other words, the only reason science works is because we observe phenomena, decipher how they occurred, and then, based on those observations, make predictions about how phenomena we observed should operate in the future. If we are correct, the phenomenon we are considering should be repeatable. If not, the theory can be falsified. But, as …

Information theorist Mark Ludwig elaborates, “Darwin’s hypothesis … has the character of unfalsifiable philosophy: it can explain anything and predicts practically nothing… . Darwinism … requires belief… . It has become the scientist’s paradigm, and he is rarely able to admit that it is fragile and charged with philosophy.”

This is because Darwinism, by definition, is built on unpredictable randomness (as opposed to the predictable randomness of something like radioactive decay). In short, Unhindered by the predictability that defines other scientific endeavors, Evolutionists can explain everything they see after the fact, but not before.

“If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation… . The theory is not … a predictive theory as to what must happen.”

Evolution is a form of mythology based on a level of unwarranted belief that must be in place before the data is analyzed. It is only after the fact that the theory is seen to be at work. The data is fit to the theory instead of the other way around — and that is not the way real science is done.

It is a common criticism of creationist and intelligent design advocates that they have bought into an unprovable myth and are therefore guilty of “wish thinking.” This is the mantra from the “new atheist” crowd or anyone else who believes Evolution is a Fact and that we all just need to deal with it. In light of that, I am offering links here to a series of 5 articles by some very qualified guys who argue that evolution is also a myth. To summarize the first post, their argument begins by establishing a few facts and characteristics concerning mythology:

• All cultures utilize myth as an important part of their sociology in that it “validates the thinking, practices, and ideals of a culture.”
• Mythology ” … is hard to prove (or disprove) with the technology of the culture; a myth requires faith.”
• All cultures have some kind of creation myth that explains the cultural foundation and most “… involve a powerful, supernatural “god” who creates the world and causes life-forms to be brought forth.”

Evolution is no different. It involves an explanation for our existence that assumes our naturalistic origins, contains an agent capable of creating all life forms (natural selection), a prophet who informs us of the myth (Darwin), and it gives rise to fundamentalist defenders of the myth who will not tolerate any departure from its tenets (the Darwinist scientific establishment).

Please go here: Evolution As Mythology (Part 1 of 5): The Theory of Evolution is a Myth and check out installment one. I am biased of course (these guys are fellow members of my local Reasons To Believe affiliate) but they are obviously qualified to discuss the subject.

• Dr. Hugh Henry received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Virginia in 1971, retired after 26 years at Varian Medical Systems, and currently serves as Lecturer in Physics at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY.
• Mr. Daniel J. Dyke received his Master of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary 1981 and currently serves as Professor of Old Testament at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, OH.
• Dr. Charles Cruze received his Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from University of Tennessee Center for Health Sciences in 1977, and currently works in research at Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.

Their work is a fascinating read. More to follow in the coming days, I hope you enjoy …