Review of John Byl, "Is Evolution Unfalsified?" – Part 1

Dr. John Byl, from Trinity Western University in Langley, BC (Canada), wrote an article at his personal blog that was intended to demonstrate that the modern scientific theory of biological evolution has been falsified in many (and in some cases important) ways. These include, but are not limited to: being contradicted by the facts of Genesis; failing to start due to origin of life problems; never being observed (macroevolution); and so on. [1] This article was important to me because, as an evangelical Christian who is investigating evolutionary science from a biblical world-view, it could potentially end my search if the theory has been falsified. And I think the author's blog itself is trustworthy and important because its goal is to not only promote a biblical world-view but one that is also consistent with confessional standards in the Reformed faith, a worthy and commendable cause in my view (because my faith draws heavily from the covenant theology of the Reformed faith). So his ideas and arguments are something to take seriously. I would encourage Christians who visit here to do the same, and to read his blog regularly.

In this case, however, I don't think his argument succeeded. What I want to do over the course of a few articles is carefully explain how I responded to the arguments he made, that is, the critical analysis that occurred in my head according to my studies and limited understanding. I think it is important to emphasize that this is simply one Christian's considered analysis and my hope is that people find it helpful in some way. And if Dr. Byl isn't one of those people—I expect he won't be—nevertheless I am grateful for the challenging material he continues to produce.

Is evolution falsified by Genesis?

The strongest argument against any position, of course, is that it is contradicted by Scripture. On this point both Dr. Byl and I firmly agree. "The plain reading of Genesis," he said—

No, sorry. I have to stop the argument right there and explain something I have learned in my theological studies, especially with regard to doctrinal disputes (e.g., Calvinism vs. Arminianism). In order to argue that a view contradicts Scripture one must start with a responsible exegesis of the relevant texts. As any serious student of Scripture well knows—Dr. Byl included, I'm sure—a plain reading of some modern English translation does not amount to any kind of meaningful exegesis and is not consistent with sound hermeneutic principles. Although the sufficiency of Scripture seems to be boilerplate for confessional documents (e.g., Article 7 of the Belgic Confession), that doesn't obviate the need for responsible exegesis. Just consider the doctrinal conflict which I used as an example. I appreciate a point made in the Westminster Confession of Faith, namely, that since it was the original languages that were directly inspired by God and not subsequent translations, in all controversies of religion the final appeal of the church must be to them (WCF 1:8).

There really is so much going on in Genesis that a plain reading simply misses. For example, consider that "Adam" and "Eve" were in all probability not the names they called each other, as those belong to the Hebrew language which did not exist until about the middle of the second millennium BC. That should then alert us to the fact that these are assigned names which are packed with archetypal meaning and significance, [2] a man named Human (federal head of mankind) with a spouse named Life (whose seed will be the Savior). These possess important covenant relevance and christological hints of the gospel. As Christians we should probably leave the plain reading to personal devotions and go deeper—responsibly, carefully, and honestly—when it comes to theological and doctrinal disputes.

The single most crucial element in Dr. Byl's argument is the idea that Genesis describes the dawn of natural history, the physical or material origins of all things. He seems to believe that the universe did not materially exist until that moment—no galaxies, planets, molecules, hydrogen atoms, absolutely nothing but God alone. All of the young-earth creationist material I have ever studied operates with that assumption already in place, as does Dr. Byl here (for he identifies Adam as "the first man" in the sense that nobody existed before him, that is, he had no parents). But it is an illegitimate assumption here because, in this context, it begs the question. Does Genesis regard the dawn of natural history? It is illegitimate to assume the very thing to be proved, so instead let's turn it into a conclusion drawn responsibly from the text. Once that is done, then Dr. Byl could legitimately argue, "This is what falsifies evolution." And it would—permanently. [3]

Is evolution falsified by origin of life problems?

I was not entirely sure what Dr. Byl was arguing here. The first part seemed to be an argument against biochemical theories on the origin of life, but surely Dr. Byl is familiar with the fact that evolution is a theory on the origin of species and their biological continuity. For me, a good memory aid for this fact is remembering the title of Darwin's book. If someone wants to know what evolution is about, the clearest answer is, "It is a theory on the origin of species, explaining it in terms of descent with modification from a common ancestor."

Although this fact seems to annoy young-earth creationists for some reason, evolution is not about the origin of life, or the origin of the solar system, or the origin of the universe, much less the origin of everything (which is the world-view of evolutionism). Rather, evolution presupposes the existence of these things in order to address the origin of species. [4] Most of the books that I have read which deal with the theory, written by scientists and philosophers (including Christian ones), are quite clear on this point. As explained by the University of California, Berkley, at their web site Understanding Evolution, "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth share a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother." That is the theory, so any critiques thereof must address that specific target, and not engage in a bait-and-switch.

But let us assume for the sake of argument that life indeed could not originate through natural processes. How would that falsify evolution? As far as I can tell, it simply wouldn't—indeed it couldn't, for the theory of evolution presupposes the existence of life. It is a biological theory, hence life is presupposed. Allow me to use different terms to clearly express the salient point as I understand it (and I admit that I could be mistaken): Notwithstanding how life arose, it has nevertheless evolved. Ergo, undermining origin of life research doesn't undermine evolution.

I find myself speculating at times as to why creationists [5] seem to focus so intensely on the problem of life's origin. The only intelligent answer I can come up with, so far, is that there must be this idea that if as Christians we can make a compelling case for God as a necessary condition at this point then we can capitalize on that for various other points of creation. Personally, I could not accept that kind of thinking because trying to insert God at any point tacitly concedes that he’s not already a necessary precondition for every point. Aubrey Moore, a fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, and curator of the Oxford Botanical Gardens, made the following observation more than 100 years ago: [6]

Those who opposed the doctrine of evolution in defense of a "continued intervention" of God seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence. And this fitted in well with the deism of the last century. [...] Yet anything more opposed to the language of the Bible and the [church] fathers can hardly be imagined. [...] There are not, and cannot be, any divine interpositions in nature, for God cannot interfere with himself. His creative activity is present everywhere. There is no division of labour between God and nature, or God and law. [...] A theory of "supernatural interferences" is as fatal to theology as to science.

This perceptive remark has been echoed by others like Robert J. Russell who likewise said, "The problem with interventionism is that it suggests that God is normally absent from the web of natural processes [...]. Furthermore, since God's intervention breaks the very processes of nature which God created and constantly maintains, it pits God's special acts against God's regular action, which underlies and ultimately causes nature's regularities.” [7]

Looking at these origin of life arguments for design, I must echo the sentiment of Cardinal Newman: "I believe in design because I believe in God, not in a God because I see design." [8] At any rate, God is not a conclusion to be reached but an axiomatic presupposition, the necessary precondition that grounds all intelligibility.

Is evolution falsified if macroevolution hasn't been observed?

The second part of his argument had to do with "macroevolution" never being observed in action. Those who have read Dr. Byl's article will know that he defined macroevolution as large-scale change "from one kind of animal to another," in contrast to microevolution or "small changes within kinds." (This was at the start of his article.) First of all, it is impossible to evaluate Dr. Byl's argument because it makes use of an undefined term: No one has any idea what exactly the term "kind" represents, only what it doesn't represent. Until creationists (generally speaking) have clearly defined and scientifically defended that term, it is illegitimate to argue that macroevolution has not been observed because we cannot know what that even means.

Is evolution falsified if macroevolution hasn't been proven?

Second, insofar as a single human generation is too brief and limited to observe large-scale evolution, no one would expect it to be observed in action. And it doesn't even matter that it hasn't been observed because, honestly, that's not how a scientific theory works in the first place! When you have a massive wealth of diverse and seemingly related facts accumulated over centuries from a wide range of independent scientific fields, you need some kind of conceptual structure that helps organize the data into a coherent and intelligible collection. That is the role of a scientific theory. In other words: We don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it. Currently, that's evolution, explaining how our planet's biodiversity came about.

And as a theory evolution is not itself true. A shocking admission? It really shouldn't be. It's not the theory that is true but the facts which it attempts to explain. What's true are the facts of paleontology, population and developmental genetics, biogeography, molecular biology, paleoanthropology, archaeology, anatomical homology and analogy, evolutionary developmental biology and epigenetics—and on and on. These are the facts, the empirical observations made of the real world. But how are we to understand and make sense of all these categorically different observations being made? Again, in science that is the role of a theory, a conceptual structure that provides a way of organizing, interpreting, and understanding the massive wealth of data we possess, drawing all the relevant facts together into a coherent scientific model that makes sense of them or explains them—and, even better, it makes predictions that result in new, previously unknown evidence being discovered which then adds to the evidential credibility of the theory.

This is what the heliocentric theory does, for example. (Yes, heliocentricism is "just a theory.") It makes sense of otherwise strange planetary motions. It is not itself true, it is just our best scientific explanation of what is true—the celestial bodies and their "wandering" motions—an explanation so powerful that it enables us to intercept planets with satellites and rovers, land scientific instruments on comets (e.g., Churyumov-Gerasimenko), even calculate the location and orbit of a tiny Kuiper belt object roughly ten billion kilometers away accurately enough to perform a photographic fly-by (e.g., 2014MU69, "Ultima Thule"). As falsifiable predictions, these also amount to empirical tests of the theory. In a similar way, evolution is not true, it's just the best scientific explanation we have for all these things that are, an explanation so powerful that it can even allow us to predict what types of fossil we ought to find and where to find them, even before we go looking. [9]

Is evolution falsified by having no useful application?

So Dr. Byl quotes a statement from Jerry Coyne about the theory of evolution being mostly useless practically, a statement that is flat-out wrong. There's no point sugar-coating it. Evolution has bestowed a host of practical benefits, some of which Coyne described in his book Why Evolution is True (2009)—which renders this statement perplexing. (I'm ignoring the bit about it having yielded little in the way of commercial benefits. I found that confusing, as if commercial application is a meaningful criterion in science. It's not. And I'm assuming that Dr. Byl didn't take his quote entirely out of context.)

Quoting a gentleman named Dr. Jerry Bergman, Dr. Byl said that "most university textbooks for the life sciences make little substantial mention of macro-evolution"—whatever that is—"especially not for experimental biology" or for medicine. (I wonder if Dr. Bergman referenced specific universities or textbooks, so that someone could look into his claim.) Assuming this claim is true, if a person thinks about this for just a few seconds he should realize that it may have something to do with the fact that these are not dealing with paleontology or comparative anatomy or what have you. Since they are not dealing with the sort of facts which "macroevolution" is supposed to address, obviously it wouldn't be relevant, so of course it would receive little mention. But how is that supposed to falsify evolution? That was not at all clear to me.

It's also worth noting that Dr. Byl had to split evolution apart into microevolution and "macroevolution," then uncouple the theory from the former (which is defined) so only the latter remains (which is undefined), in order to claim that Darwin's theory is of little use or has no substantial application in textbooks on biology or medicine. Well, obviously. But what is his argument anyway? That "macroevolution" (as he uses it) doesn't happen? It's strange that he or anyone would expect a university textbook on life sciences to mention it at all, then. Or maybe his point is that it does happen but microevolution doesn't lead to it. But that would contradict his Genesis argument about the static nature of "kinds." Honestly, I found it difficult to ascertain what his argument was here, with respect to evolution being falsified.

Setting aside how Dr. Byl uses the terms, for those who are interested the following represents the coherent picture as I understand it (any errors in this picture are mine):

Microevolution is about the variation that exists within a species population (change in allelic frequencies), which leads to macroevolution or speciation events through allopatric or sympatric conditions. These, taken together over geologic time, constitute the evolution of life with its patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records. [10]

(Part 2 is forthcoming, where we look at evolution being naturalistic as well as its unanswered questions.)

John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 2,400 words

Footnotes:

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[1] John Byl, "Is Evolution Unfalsified?" Bylogos (blog), August 28, 2015 (accessed December 24, 2018).

[2] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015).

[3] For a robust example of such an exegesis, see John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009). For a more complete picture, this view should be integrated with Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004) with some specific help from J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005).

[4] To say that evolution presupposes the existence of these things is to admit that they are relevant and important to the theory, but nevertheless separate from the theory.

[5] At this blog generally, and in this article particularly, when I use the term "creationists" I am referring strictly to young-earth and old-earth creationists of every stripe (e.g, geocentric and heliocentric, fiat and progressive, biblical and scientific, etc.). In other words, my use of the term does not include evolutionary creationists.

[6] Aubrey L. Moore, Science and Faith: Essays on Apologetic Subjects, 6th ed. (1889; London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1905), 184–185, 225. Emphasis mine.

[7] Robert John Russell, "Quantum Physics and the Theology of Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action," in Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 584.

[8] Letter to William R. Brownlow, April 13, 1870, in John H. Newman, The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, eds. Charles Stephen Dessain and Thomas Gornall, 31 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 25:97. According to Denis Alexander, the reason why ID advocates are so convinced that the origin of life and biochemical complexity requires a designer "is that if we calculate the chances of complex things coming into being by random processes then it is very improbable that this will happen. Of course. We all agree on that. [...] [But then] no one in the field believes that life started with complex molecules like proteins or DNA, as [ID advocates seem] to think, so all the calculations about huge improbabilities are a waste of time. [...] Why do creationists and ID folk spend so much time tilting at windmills?" Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford, UK: Monarch, 2008), 334. I would also add that their calculations do not ever account for the variable of God's ordinary providence.

[9] A gap in the fossil record between land-dwelling tetrapods 365 mya (e.g., Acanthostega gunnari) and lobe-finned fish 385 mya (e.g., Eusthenopteron foordi) led a research team to Ellesmere Island in northern Canada to look for fossils of what should be an intermediate species. And that is precisely what they discovered, several late-Devonian specimens (375 mya) of just such a species now called Tiktaalik roseae. Neil Shubin, Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (New York: Pantheon, 2008). See also Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking Penguin, 2009), 37–38. "So we can make another prediction. Somewhere, in freshwater sediments [that are] about 380 million years old, we'll find a very early land-dweller with reduced gills and limbs a bit sturdier than those of Tiktaalik" (38).

[10] "What Do We Mean by Evolution? Speciation, Fossils, and the Question of Information" (Chapter 5), in Alexander, Creation or Evolution, 93–129.

The Evolution of Biochemical Complexity

[Antifreeze glycoproteins, or AFGPs] consist of a repeating three-amino acid sequence consisting of threonine alanine-alanine. With two sugars attached to each threonine, AFGPs are the fish's version of ethylene glycol. But how did such unusual proteins arise? [...] Cheng's group discovered that AFGP genes evolved from an ancestral gene encoding trypsinogen [...] What clinched the story was Cheng's finding that trypsinogen contains a three-amino acid sequence with no known function in the enzyme. You guessed it: threonine alanine-alanine. In constructing AFGP, the tripeptide reiterated again and again, probably because the repetition had antifreeze properties strongly selected by ice cold water. Most of the rest of the trypsinogen gene was discarded. By deleting parts of the trypsinogen gene and recruiting and amplifying others, evolution did its borrowing act.

Barry A. Palevitz, "Missing Links and the Origin of Biochemical Complexity," The Scientist, November 22, 1999.

Quotes: A. A. Hodge

Evolution, considered as the plan of an infinitely wise [God] and executed under the control of his everywhere-present energies, can never be irreligious, can never exclude design, providence, grace, or miracles. Hence we repeat that what Christians have cause to consider with apprehension is not evolution as a working hypothesis of science dealing with facts but evolution as a philosophical speculation professing to account for the origin, causes, and end of all things.

A. A. Hodge, introduction to Theism and Evolution by Joseph S. Van Dyke, 2nd ed. (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1886), xviii.

Consistent with Scripture is Consistent with the Confession

Let me preface this article with just a brief word about the importance of creeds and confessions in the history of the Christian church, particularly for those visitors who are not really familiar with creedal formulations. Creeds and confessions are an organized and systematic summary of fundamental doctrines taught in the Bible, presenting what R. C. Sproul described as "a coherent and unified understanding of the whole scope of Scripture." Their purpose is to reflect the authoritative truth of God revealed in Scripture and protect the church against false teachings that stray from sound doctrine, in accordance with the God-given duty of the church to guard and contend for the true faith once for all delivered to the saints. Some creeds are ecumenical, affirmed by the universal Christian church (e.g., Nicene Creed), while confessional standards are more particular, affirmed by specific denominations (e.g., the Dutch Reformed subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity: The Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism). Given their critical importance, I personally believe that questions pertaining to creeds and confessions should be taken seriously.

Having said that, I encountered just such a question posed by a young-earth creationist who didn't understand how someone could claim to be faithful to the Westminster Confession of Faith while at the same time maintaining a view on origins seemingly at odds with its statements regarding that subject. (He was confounded by typically orthodox Presbyterians affirming and defending the earth being several billion years old.) For example, it says that God created the world and everything in it "in the space of six days." As far as he was concerned, those who wrote the Confession in the seventeenth century meant six consecutive normal days, which he took to be the common and traditional understanding of that period. With the context now established, he posed his question: "Since confessional documents reflect what the writers understood the Bible to be saying, can one promote a view not intended by the writers and yet still be faithful to the Confession?" I don't think a simple answer is possible upfront because, to me, it feels like there is a bit of nuance here that needs to be unpacked first. Now, I could be wrong about this—after all, I am just an average layman with no expertise—but here is what I think.

To the best of their ability by the grace of God, those responsible for composing the Confession—they were called "divines" (i.e., Doctors of Divinity or theologians)—meant nothing other than what Scripture meant. As such, any view that is produced by a careful and responsible exegesis of Scripture, consistent with sound hermeneutic principles, should also be faithful to the Confession. If the divines thought that the days of creation were normal 24-hour days but the meaning in Scripture was, for example, indefinitely long ages, then the meaning in Scripture is what the Confession intends. As far as I know, what the divines as individuals happened to believe is not entirely relevant, as the Confession is not a biographical sketch of seventeenth-century divines but a summary of biblical doctrine. The Confession is self-consciously subordinate to Scripture, serving to reflect and affirm the fundamental doctrines taught in Scripture. Even the authority of confessional documents is derivative, as they are authoritative only to the extent that they reflect and affirm the only supreme authority, the inspired and infallible word of God. So it's the meaning contained in Scripture which the Confession intends to communicate, not the beliefs of seventeenth-century divines. (Moreover, it is Scripture that is authoritative, inspired, and infallible, not the Confession or the divines who composed it, nor the traditional views of their era.)

As explained in the "Report of the Creation Study Committee" from 1999 by the Presbyterian Church in America, what was meant in the Westminster Standards by the phrase "in the space of six days" should be determined by what they wrote as the Westminster Assembly, not what they thought as individuals. "It is not a sound principle of interpretation to take the statements of individuals as defining the intent of a deliberative body." [1] Francis Beattie would have agreed with this, for as he writes in his commentary on the Westminster Standards, "It is not necessary to discuss at length the meaning of the term days here used. The term found in the Standards is precisely that which occurs in Scripture. [...] The caution of the teaching on this point, in simply reproducing Scripture, is worthy of all praise" (emphasis mine). [2] It is also worth adding that the Assembly was seeking to confess the faith common to all, notwithstanding the advanced learning of the divines themselves (e.g., consider the reserved infralapsarian language in the Standards, despite the force of supralapsarian views).

So with all that said, here now is a more succinct answer: Can you promote a view that was not believed by those who composed the Confession and yet still be faithful to the Confession? Yes, because the writers are irrelevant. However, you cannot promote a view contrary to Scripture and still be faithful to the Confession.

Now, to go a little bit further, this gentleman believed that you can hold a view that differs from the underlying meaning of the Confession but you are then not being faithful to the Confession. If the Confession means whatever Scripture means, then the problem is much worse than this fellow implied. A view that differs from the meaning of the Confession is not even faithful to Scripture, much less the Confession. The word of God says that he made everything in "six days" (Exo. 20:11) so that's what the Confession says, and it means precisely and only whatever Scripture means. So, these "six days" which the Confession mentions, are they 24-hour periods or indefinitely long ages? As I understand it, that is an exegetical question concerning Scripture, not a biographical or historical question concerning the divines or the church.

John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 1,000 words

Footnotes:

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[1] "Report of the Creation Study Committee," Studies and Actions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, 27th General Assembly (PCA Historical Center – Archives and Manuscript Repository for the Continuing Presbyterian Church, 1999).

[2] Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards (1896; repr. Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1997), 80–81.

The PCA and the Naturalistic Science of Evolution

According to the "Report of the Creation Study Committee" in 1999 by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), evolution is naturalistic and thus antithetical to a biblical world-view. The following is my response to this finding of the report, namely, that it is not supported by the facts.

Let's start by looking at how they arrived at their conclusion. The Creation Study Committee (the Committee) defined evolution as "naturalistic" on account of a statement provided by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). That statement characterized biological evolution as

an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments. [1] 

Not the greatest definition, really, but there it is. According to the Committee, that statement effectively "rules out any supernatural activity of God in the origin and development of life and of humans, and hence makes a naturalistic metaphysic the basis of science."

Logically, neither conclusion follows. In the first place, nowhere in that statement from the NABT is the supernatural activity of God ruled out. Simply speaking of a "natural process" does not somehow rule God out. Presbyterians should understand that the order and function of creation are sustained and governed by God through ordinary providence (i.e., second causes). This presupposes the nearness and activity of God, as Donald Macleod admits, whom they had referenced earlier: "All the second causes owe their potency to [God], and the whole system is effective only because of his indwelling power." [2] So, as I said, speaking of natural processes—even describing them in exquisite detail—does not magically rule God out.

Consider the following example. We might say that meteorology is the scientific study of the weather, particularly with regard to the atmospheric distribution of pressures, temperatures, and moisture which produce such phenomena as winds, clouds, storms, and precipitation. These normal day-to-day weather changes are part of a larger pattern of fluctuation known as climate. Notice that these scientific statements don't include any reference to God who commands the weather. Does that allow us to conclude that this view of meteorology is therefore naturalistic, in the sense of ruling out any supernatural activity of God? Obviously not. In the same way, doctors don't reference God when explaining your diagnosis and chemists don't include God in their description of a covalent network and so forth. This is not ruling God out, it is not naturalistic, and it is not contrary to Scripture. [3]

So straight away we know that the vast majority of the NABT statement is properly consistent with a biblical world-view and the Westminster Standards, with only two questionable terms remaining, "unpredictable" and "chance."

Does evolution being unpredictable and affected by chance events rule out the supernatural activity of God? I don't see how. Let's start with the fact that the NABT statement is a non-religious definition that neither affirms nor denies the existence and activities of God, a fact which the Committee itself acknowledged. What does that mean for our discussion? It means that evolution is "unpredictable" relative only to us, it means that "chance" mutations are random only for us. These terms reflect human ignorance and the limits of human knowledge, implicating nothing of God. An illustration of this may be the conception and development of a baby in the womb. Out of some 250 million sperm, only one will survive long enough, actually reach the egg, and successfully fertilize it, an unpredictable outcome affected by chance events that don't rule out the activity of God (Ps. 139:13). Or how about the man who shot an arrow "at random," humanly speaking (1 Kings 22:34), and fatally wounded the king of Israel, just as God had ordained (21:19; 22:20, 28; cf. 22:35, 38). Things may be random or a matter of chance humanly speaking but they are under God's sovereign government (cf. Prov. 16:33). [4]

So, it turns out that nothing in the NABT statement ruled God out, so the conclusion drawn by the Committee does not follow.

Second, it is incomprehensible nonsense for the Committee to claim that evolution being naturalistic (it's not) makes metaphysical naturalism the basis of science. It would take a smarter person than me to unpack that and identify the fallacy at work there. Nevertheless, it is actually the other way around: only if metaphysical naturalism was the basis of science would the science of evolution be naturalistic.

Metaphysical naturalism "is the philosophical doctrine that the natural world is all there is and that God, angels, and the like, do not exist. Science presupposes methodological naturalism but not philosophical naturalism, and the two should not be confused" (emphasis mine). [5] If your physician doesn't refer to God in his diagnosis, does that allow you to conclude that metaphysical naturalism is the basis of medicine? Of course not.

Contrary to the invalid conclusions of the Committee, neither evolution nor science is naturalistic; they neither include nor exclude the "special or supernatural activity of God." They ignore it. The limited competence of science does not extend to theological questions about God. The degree to which creation is sustained and governed by God through ordinary providence is a theological question, not a scientific one.

Related post-script: It is ironic that the Committee was willing to accept the science of evolution if only it meant that "the creatures we see today are related to those whose remains we dig up [as] fossils, and that the differences [between them] have to do with genetic changes that the descendants have inherited," with illustrative comparisons to be made between artificial selection and natural selection to flesh out the idea—rather like what Charles Darwin did. There may be legitimate questions "over just how much genetic relatedness the various species have with each other," it was said, but if evolution were to be argued in this sense "there would not be the kind of controversy that we find today." (!!!) The irony is so thick because that is precisely how evolution is understood and explained—yet there is controversy.


John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1

Approx. 1,000 words

Footnotes:

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[1] The citation provided in the Report amounts to a web address with no dates of either publication or access. However, I own a print copy, which is: National Association of Biology Teachers, "Statement on Teaching Evolution" (1998), in Philip Appleman, ed., Darwin, a Norton Critical Edition, 3rd ed. (1970; New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001), 615.

[2] Their citation was: Donald Macleod, Behold Your God (Tain: Christian Focus, 1990) 50.

[3] Ruling God out requires more explicit language. According to the Committee, an earlier version of the NABT statement had included the term "unsupervised." That would rule God out. It would also be unscientific, which is probably why it was removed.

[4] The word "chance" has at least three different meanings relevant to science discussions. (1) The first meaning of chance is an event that is predictable in principle but not in practice. For example, if we possessed every single tiny detail relevant to weather and climate patterns, with a quantum supercomputer to crunch the numbers, we could theoretically forecast the weather with 100 percent accuracy. (2) The second meaning of chance is an event that is not predictable either in principle or in practice. For example, given quantum physics, when a radioactive atom decays we cannot know when the next high-energy particle will be emitted. (3) The third meaning of chance is metaphysical and very different from the first two, referring to the notion that the existence of the universe was a spontaneous accident and therefore has no reason, meaning, or purpose. Only the first two meanings are relevant to evolution and consistent with a biblical world-view. Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford, UK: Monarch, 2008), 133–134.

[5] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 358. For an informative, compelling, and balanced discussion on methodological naturalism being the basis of science, read Jim Stump's contribution on pages 106–111 in Kenneth Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre, eds., Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017).

Intelligently designed broken genes?

Skeptic, vol. 23, no. 3 (2018)

Some people might be surprised to learn that despite being an evangelical Christian I cannot support the intelligent design movement and its arguments. There are a host of reasons for this, some of the more crucial ones being theological (and thus biblical). However, a few of those reasons are scientific in nature, philosophically and methodologically, which I was reminded of this weekend as I was reading an older issue of Skeptic magazine (2018).

In this issue was an article by Nathan Lents who had posed five examples of poor or bad design that proponents of intelligent design (ID) need to address, taking for granted that ID is a properly scientific model. The examples which he listed were fairly thought-provoking but it was the first example of bad design which he had highlighted that I found quite compelling—specifically, broken genes.

Lents explained that in the human genome there are "broken-down versions" of genes that "bear striking resemblance to important and functional genes in other species." A famous example of this is the GULO gene, which "normally functions in the synthesis of ascorbic acid, more commonly called vitamin C." Now, there is a clear and simple evolutionary explanation for why the majority of animals can synthesize vitamin C while primates cannot, and of course it has to do with common ancestry. Lents himself explains that in some population ancestral to the primate lineage (perhaps around 90 million years ago) the GULO gene was disabled by a random mutation and then became fixed in the population. From that point onward it has accumulated a number of other mutations, he said. "We have the GULO gene, but it's broken." Admitedly, all of that makes good sense to me.

The question, however, is what explanation could the ID model possibly provide? "Since creationists don't believe in evolution, what is their explanation?" he asks. "It's not that we don't have the GULO gene. We do. It just doesn't work. Why would an intelligent force intentionally design us with a broken gene? Give us a gene or don't, but a broken version?"

That is an excellent question and I would like to hear from creationist proponents of ID who believe they can answer it. Specifically, I would like to hear an explanation for how this state of affairs makes more sense given intelligent design than it does given evolution (thus providing a reason to prefer intelligent design over evolution).

John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 400 words