Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Skeptic: Why Christians Should Accept the Theory of Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Larry Arnhart writes:

American Christian fundamentalists reject Darwinian evolution for at least two reasons. The first is their belief that the Bible has revealed a clear teaching about the divine creation of the world that denies Darwinian evolution. The second reason is their belief that Darwinian evolution contradicts the foundational principle of the American creed that human beings have been created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. In this article I will argue that both beliefs are mistaken, and that Christians should all accept the theory of evolution.

American Christian fundamentalists reject Darwinian evolution for at least two reasons. The first is their belief that the Bible has revealed a clear teaching about the divine creation of the world that denies Darwinian evolution. The second reason is their belief that Darwinian evolution contradicts the foundational principle of the American creed that human beings have been created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. In this article I will argue that both beliefs are mistaken, and that Christians should all accept the theory of evolution.

In short, religious fundamentalists reject the Darwinian idea of human evolution from earlier species of animals because they believe this contradicts what the Bible says about God creating everything, including human beings, and about God as a personal deity who hears prayers and demands faithful obedience. They think … the Bible as God’s Revelation contradicts Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution.

Let’s see what Arnhart has to say about the evidence for intelligent design:

To all of this, the intelligent design theorist Stephen Meyer responds by arguing that although he personally believes in biblical revelation, he sees that the case for an Intelligent Designer as an alternative to materialist natural science is best made on purely scientific grounds without any appeal to biblical authority. He claims that the evidence of science based on our natural observations of the world point to the existence of an Intelligent Designer to explain the appearance of design in the natural world that cannot be explained plausibly by Darwinian evolutionary science.

Meyer’s argument suffers, however, from a fundamental sophistry. Intelligent design reasoning depends completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which intelligent design proponents argue that if evolutionary scientists cannot fully explain the step-by-step evolutionary process by which complex living forms arise, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by the Intelligent Designer. This is purely negative reasoning because the proponents of intelligent design are offering no positive explanation of their own as to exactly when, where, and how the Intelligent Designer miraculously caused these forms of life. Meyer insists that the proponents of evolutionary science satisfy standards of proof that he and his fellow proponents of intelligent design cannot satisfy, because his sophistical strategy is to put the highest burden of proof on his opponents, while refusing to accept that burden of proof for himself.

The author shows an astounding lack of understanding of the positive case for intelligent design, made clearly by Casey Luskin in a series of recent articles (Common Objections, Physics, Genetics, Systematics, and Paleontology). The boundaries of science, or the limitations of natural processes, provide a positive case for intelligent design, as discussed in my book, Canceled Science.

Arnhart’s concluding paragraph:

So, there are good reasons to believe that two of the major arguments against Darwinian evolution made by American Christian fundamentalists are mistaken. There is no clear biblical revelation denying Darwinian evolution. And there is no reason to believe that the Declaration of Independence requires a creationist theology that contradicts Darwinian science.

Skeptic

It turns out that some American Christian fundamentalists may disbelieve in Darwinian evolution for the wrong reasons, but their disbelief is squarely in line with the scientific evidence.

Comments
FH
Remind me, what scientific work has Axe done that supports an ID paradigm.
I post reviews of his book from several scientists indicating the scientific work that Axe has done to support the ID paradigm. Fred replies:
[it didn't] answer my question. How does Axe’s work with protein folds support a “Design” inference?
Yes, you'll wonder why I didn't answer the new question you now posed here after I answered your first one. In a letter to New Scientist, Doug Axe wrote:
I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails “severe sequence constraints”. The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.
Sequences can be created by intelligence. There are a rare number that can form working enzymes and therefore there is less probability that they were created by chance and more support for an ID origin.Silver Asiatic
June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
This alleged "mainstream science" doesn't have a scientific explanation for our existence. They can't even formulate a scientific theory of evolution! They can't even tell us what determines biological form! Perhaps they should be ignored.ET
June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Fred:
How does Axe’s work with protein folds support a “Design” inference?
I know that you won't understand this, but, here goes: Given TWO contrasting/ contradicting scenarios, intelligently designed or not, evidence against one supports the other.ET
June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
SAs hagiographical citation doesn't answer my question. How does Axe's work with protein folds support a "Design" inference?Fred Hickson
June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @87, Thanks for sharing the summary of Douglas Axe's brilliant work in response to yet another of Fred Hickson's "homework assignments." What I appreciate about Douglas Axe's work is that he supports his assertions with what scientific evidence from a strong technical background rather than an ideological position supported by speculation of what mighta, coulda, or musta happened. -QQuerius
June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed Throughout his distinguished and unconventional career, engineer-turned-molecular-biologist Douglas Axe has been asking the questions that much of the scientific community would rather silence. Now, he presents his conclusions in this brave and pioneering book. Axe argues that the key to understanding our origin is the “design intuition”—the innate belief held by all humans that tasks we would need knowledge to accomplish can only be accomplished by someone who has that knowledge. For the ingenious task of inventing life, this knower can only be God. Starting with the hallowed halls of academic science, Axe dismantles the widespread belief that Darwin’s theory of evolution is indisputably true, showing instead that a gaping hole has been at its center from the beginning. He then explains in plain English the science that proves our design intuition scientifically valid. Lastly, he uses everyday experience to empower ordinary people to defend their design intuition, giving them the confidence and courage to explain why it has to be true and the vision to imagine what biology will become when people stand up for this truth. Armed with that confidence, readers will affirm what once seemed obvious to all of us—that living creatures, from single-celled cyanobacteria to orca whales and human beings, are brilliantly conceived, utterly beyond the reach of accident. “Probably the most engaging book I have read in the past ten years, because of Dr. Axe’s clear explanations and profound insights. This is an important book, perhaps the best one in existence, for anyone who takes origins questions seriously, whatever their perspective.” — Chuck Garner, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Baylor University “Axe has carefully crafted a case that strongly favors our human intuition that life was designed, demonstrating why unguided evolution is improbable in the extreme. This book’s power to convince surpasses that of everything I’ve read on origins science in my sixty-five years as an engineer, biophysicist, and physiologist.” — Mark C. Biedebach, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach “Undeniable makes a compelling case by a molecular biologist that living organisms were designed by an intelligent agent, i.e. God. A decisive blow at the foundations of the materialistic explanations of the origin and diversity of life’s forms that have dominated biology for 200 years.” — Donald Ewert, PhD, Director of Research at the Hough Ear Institute and Former Wistar Institute Research ScientistSilver Asiatic
June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
There's a third option. Mainstream science continues happily ignoring the ID movement (is that becoming an oxymoron?). Anyone else able to tell me about Axe's work and how it supports an ID inference?Fred Hickson
June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Earth to Fred- what work has anyone done that supports the blind watchmaker, ie evolution by means of blind and mindless processes paradigm? Be specific or admit that you are a clueless hypocrite.ET
June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
FH & Seversky: Start with the recognition, c 1953 on, that the cell has in it D/RNA, bearing algorithmic coded information stored in string data structures, i.e. text. So, language and stepwise, goal-directed process. Crick, Watson and co. Continue, also, starting 1953, with Hoyle and Fowler and the rising recognition of a fine tuned cosmos set at an operating point that facilitates C chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. Multiply by the discoveries in communication, information and computing, names like Nyquist, Hartley, Shannon, von Neumann, Turing etc come to mind. For example, pulse code modulation traces to 1939. Bring in the growing recognition that statistical thermodynamics is not merely analogously but structurally tied to information [or its lack]. You have a climate of results that logically lead to the well supported inference that cell based life has hallmarks of design, indeed, FSCO/I on trillions of observed cases reliably comes from intelligently directed configuration, with no good counter examples. Further to this, cosmological fine tuning supports a deeper design inference and sets a context for evaluating the design evident in the cell. So, that there is a design movement is unsurprising and that it would be opposed by those committed to Lewontin-style a priori evolutionary materialism is equally unsurprising. But the weight of evidence supports what is unwelcome to the new magisterium, design. KF PS, As I have noted, J B S Haldane, crossed with Turing and others down to Smith, points to our own rational responsible freedom to think and be credible in thinking, warranting and knowing points to our being oracle machines, with a two-tier controller in the cybernetic loop. The higher order element, being non algorithmic, escaping the Turing computational substrate bound. So, we have strong reason to think our own rationality is evidence that there is another dimension of reality that transcends material computationalism.kairosfocus
June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
In response to Seversky's:
The only two scholars since William Paley who have made any credible attempt to place ID on a scientific footing are Michael Behe and William Dembski.
the name Douglas Axe is offered. Remind me, what scientific work has Axe done that supports an ID paradigm. I'm not questioning whether he's done some work on protein folding, just wondering how it supports ID.Fred Hickson
June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
JVL, knowledge is perhaps best expanded as warranted, credibly true [and so, reliable] belief. Faith needs not be blind and is inextricably intertwined in the roots of our worldviews. KFkairosfocus
June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
JVL:
So, you just have faith that it’s true?
As much faith that the Earth is not flat.ET
June 22, 2022
June
06
Jun
22
22
2022
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
JVL, another dimension or domain that is first, necessary being root of the world we share. Necessary being cannot be composed of separately existing independent parts, i.e. the realm is not physical but is its root. Further as we are amphibians with oracles transcending turing limits, we reflect that character. Yet more, as morally governed, we point to a root capable of framing moral government, inherent goodness and utter wisdom being requisites. As you full well know, historically we speak of soul, mind, spirit. Notice Anima-l, for a class of embodied creatures, where we are rational anima-ls, not merely instinctual and conditioned. More can be drawn out once we realise the first text of earth history is in the living cell in a cosmos fine tuned for such cells, implying domains of knowledge and skill as well as power adequate to frame worlds like that. KFkairosfocus
June 22, 2022
June
06
Jun
22
22
2022
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
Larry Arnhart: "Intelligent design reasoning depends completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which intelligent design proponents argue that if evolutionary scientists cannot fully explain the step-by-step evolutionary process by which complex living forms arise, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by the Intelligent Designer. " No, this is not the ID position nor is it Meyer's position. This guy doesn't know what ID is. ID is based abductive reasoning, not merely negative arguments. Moreover, it's not about "proof", it's about the best explanation given the evidence that actually exists. As with all science, the best explanation can change when new evidence is uncovered. Moreover, ID doesn't not deny all evolution, particularly the evolution that is known to actually exist via known variantion mechanisms. ID proponents generally object to ad hoc just-so stories to fill empirical holes to satisfy a cherished narrative based on apriori commitments to an irrational materialism/reductionism.Paxx
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
JVL So, you just have faith that it’s true?
:)) To have faith in your reason and to have faith in God it's an identical process : operates by granting admin privileges to an "entity" of your choice so there is no difference between the faith of atheists and theists . Identical faith , different "entity" therefore different outcomes.Lieutenant Commander Data
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
JVL
So, you just have faith that it’s true?
It's not faith. We know it is true by our rational thoughts. By logic. 1. Either A or B could have produced the effect. 2. We observe that it's not A. 3. Therefore, it is B. You're saying "But what else do you know about B? But that question is irrelevant to the truth of the proposal.Silver Asiatic
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
ET: Don’t know and don’t have to know. The logic says there had to be something else. That is all that matters. And the evidence says that it was intelligent. So, you just have faith that it's true?JVL
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
JVL:
What something else?
Don't know and don't have to know. The logic says there had to be something else. That is all that matters. And the evidence says that it was intelligent.ET
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Where, just to have a functional, rational, responsible and free mind, you need a non computational substrate, non algorithmic [or it would reduce to a simple Turing machine] oracle. You depend implicitly on that, for your arguments to have any force beyond dubious programming. That’s before logic of being speaks to necessary being reality root, as world from non being is a non starter, circular causation is the same as that, infinite succession of “years” for short cannot be traversed in stepwise succession. Worse, our rationality is inescapably morally governed [your objections rely on our known first duties of reason] and the only adequate place for that is the reality root. Which needs what is antecedent to a physical world, is powerful to create worlds, is inherently good and utterly wise to adequately ground that government. That's all lovely but . . . What something else are you talking about? Another realm? Another level or layer of reality? What?JVL
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
JVL, do you remember J B S Haldane?
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For
if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence] [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
Where, just to have a functional, rational, responsible and free mind, you need a non computational substrate, non algorithmic [or it would reduce to a simple Turing machine] oracle. You depend implicitly on that, for your arguments to have any force beyond dubious programming. That's before logic of being speaks to necessary being reality root, as world from non being is a non starter, circular causation is the same as that, infinite succession of "years" for short cannot be traversed in stepwise succession. Worse, our rationality is inescapably morally governed [your objections rely on our known first duties of reason] and the only adequate place for that is the reality root. Which needs what is antecedent to a physical world, is powerful to create worlds, is inherently good and utterly wise to adequately ground that government. So, there is plenty of good reason to know that the physical world is not self explanatory. (By contrast, once a world is, something necessary of being always was and is present in every possible world.) KFkairosfocus
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
ET: Did nature create itself? Natural processes only exist in nature. That means they could not have produced it. So, basic logic says there was something else. What something else?JVL
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Did nature create itself? Natural processes only exist in nature. That means they could not have produced it. So, basic logic says there was something else.ET
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
"You and yours presuppose that nature is all there is." On top of dat dem not knowin whut "nature" is. Andrewasauber
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
ET: You and yours presuppose that nature is all there is. Okay, I'll bite: what else is there? How do you know of these other . . . things? Realms?JVL
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Seversky at 58, You know something about the Bible but still don't know that God was the author. The human writers wrote what they had to write and no more. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recorded what they were supposed to record and no more.relatd
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
ChuckyD: “Presuppositionalism” a/k/a confirmation bias a/k/a ideology a/k/a science stopper…….." I couldn't agree more. Atheists ideologically presupposing, even falsely mandating, that 'methodological naturalism' is the 'ground rule of science', has led to extreme confirmation bias in the biological sciences and has been the number one 'science stopper' in that area of science. Junk DNA and vestigial organs just to name two major blind alleys that the presupposed, even ideologically mandated, heuristic of naturalism has falsely led biological science down.
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).
i.e. "Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."
""Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
bornagain77
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
ET/63 After all this time I just realized that “ET” stands for “earth to.” Silly me…..chuckdarwin
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
ET All evolutionists are cowards and hypocrites.
Not really. They are sincere but their sincerity seems like hypocrisy only because they have mental problems .They say it as they see it except they are blind. The violation of any of the 10 commandments gradually damage mental health till the point of insanity we see today. So ET you can't make these people see the reality by name calling or by logical explanations.Lieutenant Commander Data
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
The extraordinary claim is that nature can produce coded information processing systems. No one can demonstrate such a thing. No one even knows how to test such a claim. All evolutionists are cowards and hypocrites.ET
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Earth to chuckdarwin- You and yours presuppose that nature is all there is. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.ET
June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply