In my
last two posts I defined several aspects of evolution and made the point
that if you are going to argue a scientific theory like evolution, you first
need to make sure you understand the theory and second, you need to argue using
the evidence that nature provides. You
shouldn’t worry that evolution will somehow disprove Christianity or that approaching
scientific models in this manner would somehow allow the scientists to “win.” There
is no need to be afraid of science; if Christianity is true, then nature, when
interpreted correctly, will agree with the Christian scriptures.
Because
scientific models are invented to explain natural phenomenon, the only way to
change a model is to show evidence from nature that the model is not
adequate. Any argument against evolution
that has a chance to be successful must either present evidence against the
model or show how the current evidence is being misinterpreted. The more we labor to understand the science,
and then actually address the real issues, the further we get with the scientific
community. If we want to be a witness to science minded people, we must use the
example of Paul in Athens (Acts 17) and start with their “gods.” With that in
mind, here are five common arguments against evolution that are ineffective
within the scientific community.
1. The Bible. While this is persuasive
to some, it absolutely is a conversation stopper for others; it is usually not
successful to argue from a source that the person you are arguing with does not
trust. As stated above, this is also not how science operates. It does not
persuade someone who knows the science, but instead it quite often perpetuates
the perception of the Christian community as anti-intellectual and puts up a larger
barrier to the real purpose of the Bible, the gospel message. Besides, it is
not necessary to argue using the Bible, as there
are ways to question the data without referring to the Bible.
2. The second law of thermodynamics. This law does not state that things must go
from order to disorder. Instead, the
second law of thermodynamics requires that overall, the energy in the universe
must go from high quality to low quality; like from potential energy to heat.
This loss of energy quality is what makes it possible for energy to be
transferred from one place to another. The confusion with order and disorder
(entropy) comes from a corollary of the second law which says that if you focus
on a single closed system in which no energy or matter is entering or leaving
the system, then if you start in an ordered state, you will end up in a
disordered state. The earth is not a closed system, so this does not apply to
life on earth. In addition, many life processes that seem to become more
ordered, actually have a positive entropy (become disordered) when you look at
the system as whole. Actions like proteins folding, DNA adopting a double
helix, and cell membranes assembling all spontaneously occur. While these seem to be more ordered, what
happens with the surrounding water molecules is the key; in all three actions,
water is driven out from the inside of the structure and becomes more disordered
allowing the other ordering processes to occur. You can therefore get order and
structure without violating anything about the second law of thermodynamics. If
you want to argue that there is no known mechanism that can form molecules on the
early earth, then this is a kinetic limitation, not a thermodynamic barrier.
3.
Any argument that uses the old assumption that the mechanism of evolution
is simply driven by point mutations in regions of DNA that code for proteins. These
arguments are commonly made using statistics, showing how improbable something
is, or showing that there is not enough time for a certain process to happen. The
time and/or statistical arguments using these point mutations are currently “straw
man” arguments because we presently don’t completely understand the mechanism of
natural selection. It is ineffective to pick on an outdated mechanism, since we
no longer think the mechanism simply involves single point mutations protein
coding regions of DNA. It is looking more like most of the action happens in gene
expression and regulation or in developmental genes. There is more work to be
done here, so arguments that use statistical evidence against the time it takes
for a certain number of point mutations to occur shouldn’t be put forward.
4. Irreducible complexity. This has been proven to be an ineffective argument to make the
case for design at the biochemical level because an evolutionary path for some
irreducibly complex systems has been demonstrated through a process known as cooption. Intermediate systems that do have
function have been shown that they possibly could be used in a new system; for
example, the “type 3 secretory apparatus” in bacteria could be used to make a flagellum.
The secretory system in bacteria, used to inject proteins through the cell
membrane into the host cell, is homologous to the base of the bacterial
flagellum.[1]
It has been shown, therefore, that it is possible for an irreducibly complex
machine to emerge through a stepwise process. We don’t have to completely throw
out this argument, however. Complexity is a feature that is common in designs
made by human beings, so when we see these complex systems in nature, there is
a good analogous argument for the work of a mind.
5. “It’s just a theory.” Yes, it is true
that parts of the evolutionary paradigm are theory. But, this is actually a positive argument to
a scientist! A theory is defined as something that is supported by evidence, is
and has been tested, and is falsifiable, and can be used to make
predictions. It does not mean that it is
a guess or a hunch. Theories explain how or why something occurs, while laws generally
describe something that always occurs.
The law of gravity describes what we directly see as always occurring, while
the theory of general relativity explains how and why it occurs. A theory
generally doesn’t become a law with more evidence, although the theory that
atoms exist could be said to have risen to the status of law because we have
directly observed atoms with a scanning, tunneling microscope. That atoms are
made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, would be a theory. Using the breakdown
of the term evolution from my
previous post, I would say that micro-evolutionary change and speciation
are actually laws, while the process of natural selection, macro-evolution, and
common descent are all theory.
Arguments that use the Bible, thermodynamics, chance
and time, complexity, or “It’s just a theory” are usually not effective against
evolution. There are, of course, good
arguments that can be used to question the evolutionary paradigm. (Most of the content of this post comes from listening to Dr. Fazale Rana at Reasons to Believe)
[1] Kenneth R. Miller, The Flagellum
Unspun, The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity", Brown University http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.