i. introduction terms & concepts. multi-faceted scientific issue - biology and chemistry -some...

I. Introduction

Terms & Concepts

•Multi-faceted scientific issue- biology and chemistry- some physics, geology, astronomy- Subdisciplines

•Non-Biblical topic

•Distractions to the issue- age of earth- big bang- plate tectonics

•Confusing terms and “evolving” jargon

http://plantsci.missouri.edu/roberts/comment.htmhttp://plantsci.missouri.edu/roberts/comment.htm

Change Over Time

•Chemical Evolution (called “abiogenesis”):self-organization of life from non-life

•General Evolution (called “macroevolution”):simple to complex, an extrapolation, a

model

Change Over Time

•Chemical Evolution (called “abiogenesis”):self-organization of life from non-life

Simple Life

Complex Life

•Special Evolution (like “microevolution”):changes within a gene pool, testable

•General Evolution (also “macroevolution”):simple to complex, an extrapolation, a

model

Change Over Time

•Related concepts:Theistic Evolution, Exobiology, Progressive

Creation

•Chemical Evolution (called “abiogenesis”):self-organization of life from non-life

1999 Gallup Poll: overall stats

40%Theistic Evolution

47%Creation

9%Atheistic Evolution

When stats are “broken down…”

many educated people believe in theistic evolution

II. Special Evolution Occurs

No Evolution“Fixity of Species”

GenePool

GenePool

GenePool

GenePool

Special Evolution

GenePool

GenePool

GenePool

Kind

“Species” not equal to “Kind”(A.J. Jones, 1972)

Biblical Language

Kind

Secular Language

KingdomPhylumClassOrderFamilyGenus

Species

Special Evolution

Male Guppies with “few predators”

Male Guppies with “many predators”

“Evolution”via “speciation”

Common ancestor?

Then, species evolve from species … to a point.

Kind

III. Chemical Evolution Is a

Belief

“…the very first cause, which was certainly not mechanical.

It is unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of nature.”

Isaac Newton

• Life from life (Biogenesis: bio - genesis)

• Life from non-life (Abiogenesis: a - bio - genesis)

… not the “First Cause” issue (cosmology)

… related to the “Design” issue (teleology)

… like “Intelligence vs. Matter” question

Clarifying the Issue- abiogenesis -

• Bible teaches life from non-living building blocks.

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Gen 2:7)

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky…. (Gen 2:19)

• Abiogenesis is “chemical evolution.”

• More relevant, Bible teaches life from the living God.

• It is the doctrine of unassisted “self-organization.”

Scientific Support?- Mathematics of Self-Organization -

• Computer models

• Virtual, not real Biochemistry

• Not highly regarded by many biochemists

• “Fact-free” science

• Kauffman vs. Dembski

Scientific Support?- Chemistry of Self-Organization -

Specifically ...... what are the steps?

Proteins First?

Amino acids

Most AAPeptidesAdenine

H2O

H

R

C COO-+H3N

H

R

C COO-+H3N

•Assumes early atmosphere was reducing (no O2)

•Does not imply formation of complex molecules

•Requires intelligence

Building blocks?

Maybe, including

“non-life” forms.

Bricks, or half bricks

Manhattan

What we have made ...

What we have left to make ...

“We have reached a situation where a theory has been accepted as fact by some, and possible contrary evidence is shunted aside.”

It is “mythology rather than science.”

Robert Shapiro, 1986 (Dep of Chemistry, SUNY)

RNA first?

Adenine

(Modified to input HCN)

If not proteins, then what? RNA?

(RNA also a “ribozyme”)

Adenine is half of

a building

block

• 3 other bases needed for RNA

• All need a sugar-phosphate

• Still requires 3 other bases (likely)

• Bases must bond to sugar-phosphate

• All nucleotides need to organize in exact sequence (100s of them)

• Need DNA at some point

• DNA has extra nucleotide

• Its nucleotides must be in sequence (500,000 at least)

• Then, it must FUNCTION

• Still requires 3 other bases (likely)

• Bases must bond to sugar-phosphate

• All nucleotides need to organize in exact sequence (100s of them)

(often argued that first life did not have DNA

… the “RNA World”)

“We have reached a situation where a theory has been accepted as fact by some, and possible contrary evidence is shunted aside.”

It is “mythology rather than science.”

Robert Shapiro, 1986 PhD, Dep of Chemistry, SUNY

Function

The machine:

A city block

of Manhattan

The cell:Manhatta

n

Adenine: half

of a building block.

Life from RNA World?

“Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis.”

“The second group of scientists are more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle.”

G.F. Joyce and L.E. Orgel, 1998

“Unfortunately, the optimism surrounding the RNA world ignores known chemistry. In many ways the RNA-world fad of the 1990’s is reminiscent of the Stanley Miller phenomenon during the 1960’s: hope struggling valiantly against experimental data.”

Michael Behe, Dep of Biology, Lehigh University

Other Abiogenesis Ideas

• Proteinoids

• Microspheres

• Protocells

• Progenote (now called the “Universal Ancestor”)

cyanobacteria“protocells”

“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….”

Francis Crick

Biogenesis

• Life from non-life (Abiogenesis: a - bio - genesis)

• Life from life elsewhere (Biogenesis: bio - genesis)

no intelligence

intelligence

Life from Life Elsewhere

• Exobiology: life on other planets

• Directed Panspermia: cells sent here from aliens

“…life was sent here in the form of bacteria suitable for growth in anaerobic conditions, and that several somewhat different forms would probably have been sent at the same time, in hope that at least one would survive.”

Francis Crick

III. General Evolution Is a

Model

Simple Life

Complex Life

= gene pool

Is Special Evolution

related to

General Evolution?

Question: Does special evolution ...

… plus billions of years …

… necessitate general evolution?

Special Evolution + Time = General Evolution

/

…plus time…

… does not necessarily imply …

Is Special Evolution

related to

General Evolution?

Academically. General Evolution is a

model assumed from Special Evolution.

Data

Extrapolation

KnownUnknown…but stated as known

Typical study• Excellent procedure• Generous extrapolations

Jonathan Wells, 2000

Darwin’s Finches:General Evolution? Special Evolution?

Evolution?

Grant Studies on Galapagos

Daphne

MajorIsland

JamesBartolome

Tower

Baltra

equator

Fernandia

Santa CruzIsabela

Floreana Hood

Galapagos

Islands

Pacific Ocean

EQUADOR

Common ancestor? Anyone dispute possibility?

Medium ground finch

1970’s• Tagged every “individual” medium ground

finch• Recorded adult weight, beak size, and diet• Recorded mating and offspring• Documented seed diversity and availability• Recorded climatic data (rainfall)

1997: Drought Year• 1” during rainy season; normal = 5”• Fewer seed• Small soft seed depleted• Loss of 85% individuals• Survivors were larger• Survivors had 5% larger beaks (beak

“depth”)

Time

1977

1997 drought… “…a selection

event.”

Change in

Beak Depth

5% increase in beak size

}

Time

1977

Change in

Beak Depth

5% increase in beak size

}

Is this evolution? Even special evolution?

• Possibly, birds evolve from birds

• But only a half mm change in beak

• Also, no new species named• Beak size stable?

If beak size kept increasing…“about 20 selection events would have

sufficed” for all finches on Galapagos to have

evolved.

Droughts occur once per decade, so…… 1 drought per 10 years… 20 droughts = 200 years

(Grant, 1991)

Time

drought

“3 selection events”(need 17 more)

drought drought

Change in

Beak Depth

1982: El Nino year • 5 times normal rainfall• 10 times rainfall of previous year• Small soft seed replenished• Bird population increased • Birds in 1983 were smaller• Birds in 1983 had smaller beaks

Time

1977 1984

“no net change”

?Change

in Beak Depth

“… a reversal in the direction of selection.”(Gibbs and Grant, 1987)

“Selection had flipped … the birds took a giant step backward after their giant step forward.”

(Weiner, 1994)

“… the population is oscillating back and forth ….”

(Grant, 1991)

• No “net” evolution occurring, even special evolution

• No “simple-to-complex” (directional)• The “truth” has changed in 10 years

• More to say…- Species are merging (evolution in reverse)- Claims of evidence for general evolution

continue- These were not Darwin’s finches

Darwin’s theory of the origin of the species “fits the facts of Darwin’s finch evolution on the Galapagos Islands,” and “the driving force” is natural selection.

(Grant and Grant, 1996, 1998)

This “illustrates how we can extrapolate from natural selection operating within a species to explain the diversification of the finches from a single common ancestor.”

(Ridley, 1996)

Billions ofyears ago

Today

“Darwin possessed only a limited and largely erroneous conception of both the feeding habits and the geographical distribution of these birds.”

(Sulloway, 1982, 1984)

• Collected 9 of the 13 finches, identifying 6 as finches

• Only twice observed differences in their diets• Failed to correlate diet with beak shape• Did not separate them by island

(this was done by John Gould upon return to England) (much of Darwin’s info corrected by shipmate records)

The Science

The Myth

Students can “imagine themselves in Darwin’s place” and “write journal pages that Darwin could have written.”

Johnson, 1998

“…the correspondence between the beaks of the 13 finches and their food source immediately suggested to Darwin that evolution had shaped them.”

Raven and Johnson, 1999

No Scientific Problems … Scientist Problems• Special evolution, if occurred, was

extrapolated to general evolution(data that agreed with the Bible—birds evolving into birds—presented as contradicting the Bible.)

• No simple-to-complex, but used as such• Darwin seeing finches described as sudden

finding- in reality, this is a myth- the finch is a “holy relic”

(Wells, 2000)

What do we learn from this study?

IV. Theistic Evolution Is Non-

Biblical

Theistic Evolution

Intelligence or Life

SimpleLife

ComplexLife

Biogenesis + General Evolution

(Billions of years) (Billions of years)

•common decent with God’s help•general evolution minus naturalism

Common Descent? Simple to Complex?

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Gen 2:7)

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them…. (Gen 2:19)

?

V. How is this issue V. How is this issue

addressed?addressed?

Invalid Use of Terms

“Special Evolution” not recognized

or is used interchangeably with “Evolution.”

KnownUnknown…but stated as known

Invalid ConceptThere are two choices.

Non-Life

SimpleLife

ComplexLife

Invalid ClaimAbiogenesis + General Evolution

are undisputed by reputable scientists.

Non-Life

SimpleLife

ComplexLife

http://www.discovery.org/csc/scienceEducation/

Invalid Strawman“Creationists believe in fixity of species”

“Scientific creationists believe … that all species of organisms were individually created looking just like they do today.”

Raven and Johnson

A Good Comparision?A Good Comparision?

EvolutionEvolution CreationCreation

A Good Comparision?A Good Comparision?

EvolutionEvolutionScienceScience

CreationCreationFaithFaith

A Good Comparision?A Good Comparision?

EvolutionEvolutionScienceScience

Natural historyNatural history

CreationCreationFaithFaith

Oral historyOral history

A Good Comparision?A Good Comparision?

EvolutionEvolutionScienceScience

Natural historyNatural historyFactFact

CreationCreationFaithFaith

Oral historyOral historyMythMyth

““Science tells us how;Science tells us how;Religion tells us why.”Religion tells us why.”

A Scientific ConsiderationA Scientific Consideration

General Evolution:General Evolution: not provablenot provable

Special Evolution:Special Evolution: provable, provenprovable, proven

A Fair Philosophical QuestionA Fair Philosophical Question

General Evolution:General Evolution: not “provable”not “provable”

Creation:Creation: not “provable”not “provable”

V. How is this issue V. How is this issue

addressed?addressed?• Teaching the creation account Teaching the creation account

(Bible)(Bible)

• Teaching the creation account Teaching the creation account (Bible)(Bible)

• Poor teaching on evolution (science)Poor teaching on evolution (science)

V. How is this issue V. How is this issue

addressed?addressed?

But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.

Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

2 Cor 3:15-16 NKJ

““Science is knowledge.Science is knowledge.Evolution is a theory, not knowledge.Evolution is a theory, not knowledge.Therefore, evolution is not science.”Therefore, evolution is not science.”

““Charles Darwin was not a good scientist.”Charles Darwin was not a good scientist.”

““Species do not evolve from species.”Species do not evolve from species.”

“Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them ….” (Gen 1:11)

RudenessRudeness

… but, speaking the truth in love ....

Eph 4:15 NKJ

… always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you

a reason for the hope that is in you,with meekness and fear.

I Pet 3:15 NKJ

Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord,we persuade men.

2 Cor 5:11 NKJ

• Teaching the creation account Teaching the creation account (Bible)(Bible)

• Poor teaching on evolution (science)Poor teaching on evolution (science)• No teachingNo teaching

V. How is this issue V. How is this issue

addressed?addressed?

So David inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go up against the Philistines?”

2 Sam 5:19 NKJ

““I’m not much of a fighter.”I’m not much of a fighter.”

Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the armies of the living God?

1 Sam 17:26 NKJ

““I see no need to be involved,I see no need to be involved,in my situation.”in my situation.”

Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him

when he saw that the city was given over to idols.

Acts 17:16 NKJ

““You’re not gonna change anybody.”You’re not gonna change anybody.”

Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness,

nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity;

But you have delivered your soul.

Ezek 3:19 NKJ

• Teaching the creation account Teaching the creation account (Bible)(Bible)

• Poor teaching on evolution (science)Poor teaching on evolution (science)• No teachingNo teaching

V. How is this issue V. How is this issue

addressed?addressed?

www.arn.org

www.discovery.org

www.answersingenesis.org

www.talkorigins.org

www.pandasthumb.org

• Do it!Do it!VI. A more excellent wayVI. A more excellent way

Who knows whether you have come to the kingdom

for such a time as this?

Esther 4:14 NKJ

• Do it!Do it!• Learn what to say.Learn what to say.

VI. A more excellent wayVI. A more excellent way

• Do it!Do it!• Learn what to say.Learn what to say.• Be sympathetic.Be sympathetic.

VI. A more excellent wayVI. A more excellent way

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, t

hat I might win the more;… to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews;

… to those who are without law, as without lawthat I might win those who are without law;

… to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak.

I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

1 Cor 9:19-22 NKJ

To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews;To the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak.

To the contemporary scientist, I became ?,that I might fight instead of trying to win them.

I have become all things to all men, except to contemporary scientists.

??

• Do it!Do it!• Learn what to say.Learn what to say.• Be sympathetic.Be sympathetic.• Trust in the Lord.Trust in the Lord.

VI. A more excellent wayVI. A more excellent way

Only Luke is with me.

2 Tim 4:11 NKJ

Scientists

• You are trained for this.You are trained for this.• You are blessed, talented, needed.You are blessed, talented, needed.• Many count on you.Many count on you.• You are not saving souls through science.You are not saving souls through science.• You are trying to remove obstacles.You are trying to remove obstacles.

• Take a stand. Fight. Do not be my brother.Take a stand. Fight. Do not be my brother.• Speak the truth in love; persuade people.Speak the truth in love; persuade people.• Make central arguments. Avoid the periphery.Make central arguments. Avoid the periphery.• Make the logical arguments.Make the logical arguments.• Be honest.Be honest.• Stay in your lane.Stay in your lane.• Pray. Pray.

Evangelists

• You can persuade atheists and agnostics.• You have training in the scriptures.• You may not have training in science.

• “Speak the truth in love.”• Know the basics. • Learn the minimal language.• Be careful of blanket statements.• Ask help from the scientists.• “Do not fear their intimidation.”• Be aware of your effect on the members.

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said,

"We will hear you again on this matter."So Paul departed from among them.

However, some men joined him and believed ....

Acts 17:32-34 NKJ

www.arn.org

www.discovery.org

www.answersingenesis.org

www.talkorigins.org

www.pandasthumb.org