Science

Young Earth Creationism and the Problem of Multiple Dating Methods for a Tyrannosaur Fossil

When I was a young earth creationist (here after YEC), I often heard about the absurdity of dating methods used to arrive at millions of years for the age of fossils. One such argument I have seen repeated is that scientists determine the date of fossils based upon presuppositions about the age of each layer in the fossil record. What I want to emphasize is that this massively oversimplifies the way scientists date fossils. When we look at how scientists actually do date individual fossils, the evidence for the age of the Earth against YEC mounts quickly.

There are many, many more methods of dating fossils that continue to show that entirely independent strands of evidence yield the same ages or relative ages. In an essay in Tyrannosaurid Paleontology edited by Parrish et al., the authors show the age of a juvenile Tyrannosaurid based upon pollen, leaves, and paleomagnetism. What is important to note is that these are independent ways of measuring the age of this specific fossil. That is, the data that needs to be explained by the YEC is not simply dismissal of Carbon dating or something, but rather that each of these data points must be independently falsified, along with an explanation for why they would all align. Additionally, the paper summarized below shows how much more complex dating methods based upon looking at the layer in which a fossil is found. In other words, it helps to show that the creationist teaching that remains fairly common on YouTube and elsewhere that scientists simply look at the layer a fossil is in and assume the age is quite complex and based upon a series of data points.

Brief Summary of the Evidence

Note: I am not a trained scientist. I am summarizing the content of the paper cited, and attempting to put quotations at every point I’m directly quoting. This section is largely a glossed summary of points of the paper, and any errors and misunderstanding thereof in such a summary are on me.

In an essay entitled “Using Pollen, Leaves, and Paleomagnetism to Date a Juvenile Tyrannosaurid in Upper Cretaceous Rock” by William F Harrison et al., the authors argue that a juvenile fossil tyrannosaurid fossil (named and sometimes hereafter referred to as “Jane”) can be confidently dated to about 66 million years ago. The juvenile tyrannosaurid (still an astonishing 7 meters in length!) was discovered in the Hell Creek formation in southeastern Montana in Carter County. The authors give details of the find, including the longitude/latitude, the place within the Hell Creek formation in which it was found, and other relevant details.

One of these is that the place the fossil was found was missing the top of the Hell Creek Formation with the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. This is a common part of the formation and other parts of the formation were visible from the site but the paleontologists were not granted access to the other sites within view to conduct a direct survey of the geologic columns there. This meant that they had to rely on additional dating methods.

First, they used a borehole log, which is made by cutting a cylindrical hole into the ground and extricating a section therefrom, allowing geologists to make a detailed summary of the formation. Another survey of nearby Blacktail Creek area of Montana was able to locate a magnetic reversal, which could then be used at the site of the Jane find to help place it in the formation. A stratigraphic section of the formation at the Jane site is provided, showing in detail each of these layers and correlations thereof. Jane, after death, was “buried within a 40 cm thick lens of poorly sorted silt, sand, and clay balls… This clay ball conglomerate contains abundant plant and animal fossils…” Again, a photograph shows a polished section of the clay ball conglomerate and siderite (a mineral compound) in which Jane was found.

Interestingly, from this conglomerate in which Jane was buried, scientists were able to extract fossilized pollen, vegetational residue, and more for analysis. This allowed them to determine what kind of planets the residue and pollen came from. The pollen was demonstrably from aquilapollenites and wodehouseia, each of which are entirely extinct now (more on that later). Fossil leaves were also collected from the Jane site, and these correspond to “the stratigraphic position indicated by the pollen and support the determination of its geologic age.” Once again, these leaves were determined to genus and species and they correspond to a “very narrow megafloral zone.” This is important, because, again, this megafloral zone is a zone in which only certain species occur within a stratigraphic layer on the Earth, and at the Jane site, only leaves from certain megaflora in a specific zone were found. Other types of plant leaves found are restricted in the fossil record to very specific parts of the Hell Creek formation. For conventional scientists, this marks their extinction [for YEC possibilities and problems thereof, see the section below]. The greatly delimited range of these plants allows scientists to narrow down the age of the Jane site even more, because it occurs only within a very specific stratigraphic range alongside very specific other fossils.

Additionally, the scientists collected samples from the fine grained sediment at the Jane site and analyzed them at the Paleomagnetics Laboratory of the University of California, Davis. There, based on the way the clay balls were sorted within the samples, they found the magnetic polarity of the sample corresponded to normal polarity and thus set another limit on the age of the Jane site (based upon stratigraphic samples showing differing magnetic polarity above or below it). Because these polarity shifts–reverse-normal-reverse-etc.–can be measured through stratigraphic analysis essentially globally, this allowed the scientists at the Jane site to determine that the age range of 65.9-66.0 million years ago is the correct age for the Jane fossil. The precision was possible because of both the paleobotanical and palynological–ancient plants and microorganisms–samples from the site.

Some Conclusions and Issues

It worth noting that the pollen at the Jane site was from two types of planets which are entirely extinct now. Young Earth Creationists often argue that all or most fossils, including the overwhelming majority (or all) dinosaurs were deposited by Noah’s Flood. One wonders, then, why in this great conglomeration and mixture of plants and animals, there is no fossilized pollen found from species that exist now. Why only extinct species? How did it just so happen that only extinct pollen–microscopic pollen!–settle onto this site? And how is that the case time and again, at site after site after site? To say that all this pollen and all these plants were washed away by the Flood but then somehow sorted into extinct and non extinct species, remarkably from bottom to the top of the geologic column, should be enough to stretch even the most credulous minds.

Similarly, the determination of just a few species of megaflora found at the Jane site demands explanation. Here, because leaves are obviously much larger than pollen, the creationist could theoretically just say that it so happened this area was only covered with that type of planet during the pre-Flood time and so it happened that only that kind of planet was preserved here. That does not, however, explain why totally different and distinct layers of plants are found in layers above and below this generalized stratigraphic layer, or why this specific megafloral zone is consistent across not just the Hell Creek Formation but elsewhere, and why examples of this can be multiplied essentially indefinitely. Time and again, specific fossils are only found with other specific fossils. There’s no mixing of them all together. You don’t find rabbit fossils with dinosaur fossils with the type of megaflora fossils found with Jane. Why not? Were there no rabbits roaming the pre-Flood world of Montana? Were there no flowering plants close enough to have their leaves cast about massive expanses of fossilized land? Again, it is far, far more parsimonious and plausible to acknowledge that, instead, the YEC narrative is simply mistaken on this. It cannot handle the sheer weight of the evidence.

The evidence here does not rely on Carbon-14 dating directly. Instead, it relies upon generally acknowledged dates for things like the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary, which again was sheered off by weather or some other events at the Jane site. This, along with the pollen fossils, microorganism fossils, and botanical fossils allowed scientists to make determinations to continue narrowing the date of the site from a broad range (before the K/T boundary) to a much more narrow range. These dating techniques were done independently. That is, the identification of the leaves was not used to determine the age of the polarity shifts in the magnetism of Earth. Instead, the way the sediments were sorted in the samples was used to determine a date; the specific pollen of megaflora was used to determine a specific date range because they only lived during a certain time range; the leaves were used to determine a specific range (here, independently, based upon botanical analysis of the age range possible with these plants). These all independently yielded a similar and narrow range. It was narrowed not arbitrarily but by noting the relative ages of each range.

So, for example, if you discovered a text fragment from the ancient world, you could narrow down the timeline in which it was made or discussing by finding out more about it. If, for example, it was in Latin and talking about events in the Roman Empire, that would broadly limit the possible dates to within the existence of the Roman Empire; then, if it talked about a specific province of Rome that wasn’t conquered until a certain time, that would narrow the possible timeline even more, and then if it talked about a governor of that province, it would narrow the dates to within the rule of that governor, etc. Similarly, since certain plants or microorganisms can be known to only occur in certain stratigraphic layers–and this is consistently determined by actual digs finding actual evidence of this assortment and lack of mixing–one can set ever-narrowing limits on the age based upon the overlaps of these events. Adding in the polarity shifts to the dating method was just icing on the cake. And again, why should all these data methods correspond unless the Earth is actually as old as conventional science supposes?

One obvious objection in all of this is the question of how the scientists determined the relative ages of things like the leaves, pollen, etc. While it seems, on the surface, problematic that these all correspond to ages in the millions of years that all align, just having a leaf in a fossil layer is not enough to put a date on it. Aren’t those dates slapped on based on radiometric dating of some kind, thus making the whole thing one line of evidence, not many? The objection has some weight at first glance because, to my knowledge, it is true that the ages for the stratigraphic layers were determined, in part, by radiometric dating, and thus saying that a certain layer has a consistent date across the region is reliant upon that dating method. Setting aside the many, many arguments and clarifications about radiometric dating, however, the problems in this paper go far beyond reliance upon radiometric dating. They also are grounded upon measurements about the magnetic polarity of Earth, as well as independent, multiple lines of evidence showing a narrow range of dates for when Jane was possibly alive. Supposing radiometric dating is entirely unreliable and that it just somehow continually yields similar age ranges for similar layers and fossils and consistently is measured in the same ranges across regions and beyond, the fact remains that Jane was identified in a unique stratigraphic layer with unique and exclusive megaflora pollen, unique and exclusive leaves, unique and exclusive microorganisms, and unique and exclusive polarity measurements through the clay ball sediment sorting present.

Why, given Noah’s Flood’s deposition of these layers, would this even possibly be the case? There’s not even one piece of pollen out of place from a plant in a different stratigraphic layer; there’s not even one piece of evidence of sediment being sifted in a different direction by changing tides of Flood water; there’s not even one leaf from an olive tree or any modern botanical features that happened to show up in this entire layer of deposited sediment; there’s not even one microorganism out of place; there’s not even one out of place animal fossil from a different sedimentary layer; there’s not even one post K-T Boundary layer creature found out of place. Not. Even. One. Did God miraculously sort each grain of sediment, each microorganism, each animal washed away by the Flood, each leaf, each pollen grain, each plant, each megafloral layer so that they would layer upon each other in distinct and evidentially detectable ways? It’s absurd to suppose this. It’s not that this would be impossible for God. No, it’s that there’s no biblical or extrabiblical evidence to suggest that God interacts in the world in this way. The only reason to even posit it is a desperate attempt to save modern young earth creationism from scientific absurdity. And that means that acts of God are being determined by modern science after all, in an ironic twist–YECs are determining how and why God acted based upon scientific evidence. The whole thing collapses on examination.

Additional Evidence and Conclusion

I have argued elsewhere about the stunning congruity of such divergent dating methods as tree rings, varves (annual layers of sediment), and Carbon-14. If YEC is true, there seems to be no explanation for why tree rings, Carbon-14, and varves should all align on the age of the Earth. I’ve also noted the argument from GPS measurement of the movement of the Hawaiian Islands and Carbon-14 dating of those same islands. Again, why should the measured movement rate of the Hawaiian Islands align with C-14 dating methods on YEC? And, as argued above, why should leaves, pollen, and paleomagnetism align as well? There is a stunning and constant refrain from these various and independent ways for measuring the age of fossils or the Earth generally: they point to an age that is orders of magnitude larger than that of YEC.

Young Earth Creationism, therefore, must contend either that all of these independent methods for dating fossils are mistaken in multiple independent ways or come up with a plausible explanation for why God would provide all these independent methods to provide false data. Proposals I have seen for the latter (eg. God intentionally creating with the appearance of age) suffer from severe theological problems, while proposals for the former are essentially nonexistent. It seems far more plausible, then, to suppose that it is Young Earth Creationism that is falsified.

Links to Amazon are Affiliates Links

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Gregg Davidson vs. Andrew Snelling on the Age of the Earth– I attended a debate between an old earth and young earth creationist (the latter from Answers in Genesis like Ken Ham). Check out my overview of the debate as well as my analysis.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye- An analysis of a lose-lose debate– In-depth coverage and analysis of the famous debate between young earth creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye the science guy.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “What Hath Darwin to do with Scripture?” by Dru Johnson- A breath of fresh air in the science-Christianity discussion

What Hath Darwin to do with Scripture? is a rarity in an overflowing market of books on Christianity and science. It brings something that feels fresh and new to the table. Having read it, I find myself sitting back and reflecting on the book, and wanting to discuss and share it with others. The first chapter puts the book’s thesis in perspective: “This is not the Creation-Evolution Debate You’re Looking For” (3). Indeed, it goes far beyond other works I’ve seen focused on interpretation of Scripture and evolution.

Dru Johnson’s work here presents a look not at debates about individualized texts and whether they can be reconciled with evolution. Instead, Johnson focuses on the conceptual worlds of evolution and the Bible to see if there is any overlap or conflict. Thus, instead of offering a text-by-text approach and asking whether this text over here precludes evolution or this one here hints at natural selection, he looks at overarching themes and stories in Scripture and how those might resonate (or not) with evolution. More specifically, Johnson argues the question shouldn’t be on pitting origin stories right next to each other in a verse-by-verse or thesis-by-thesis throwdown; instead, looking at how origin stories conceive of the world presents a more “apples to apples” approach (18-20).

There are three main themes Johnson focuses on in order to make comparisons between conceptual worlds. These themes are “scarcity,” “fit,” and “generation.”

“Scarcity” is clearly part of the Darwinian thesis and later evolutionary theory (25ff), and is often linked to violence. Johnson explores how the Bible also approaches language about scarcity and how it is also approached through violence at times (54ff). One aspect of his exploration is to point out that we have a skewed view of agrarian society and this entails a misunderstanding of the earliest parts of Genesis with its focus upon a life free of scarcity and threats emerging from the same (51ff, 56-57). The theme of scarcity doesn’t stay in Genesis, but can be found throughout the OT narratives and extends into the NT visions of a New Kingdom (83-84). The God-creation relation and covenants involved therein found in the Bible present, for Johnson, some of the places that it may be most at odds with evolutionary thinking (90). While this is the case, Johnson argues that biblical concepts related to scarcity have some resonance with evolutionary conceptualization of the world.

One of the most fascinating sections in the book is less about evolution than it is about the development of languages. In a lengthy section on the “fit” of people and creatures to their habitats, Johnson delves into the way that experts in linguistics have shown that the very geography of peoples’ regions shapes their language–complicated, high pitched noises being shouted through a rainforest, for example, doesn’t work as well as simple “e” or “a” sound. Differences between sounds used in languages can be identified and linked to geographic features (115ff). What has any of this got to do with the Bible? Johnson then turns around and examines concepts behind the story of Babel and the story of Pentecost, showing how each also shows the way geography and regional dialects could emerge (118-120).

“Generation” is the final aspect Johnson interrelates between Scripture and evolution. Sex and procreation are obvious hallmarks of both conceptual worlds, guiding the drive for selection and survival in one and becoming deeply important to the continuity of God’s promises in the other. Lengthy discussions of the seeming strangeness of monogamy from an evolutionary and even biblical perspective, discussion of norms related to sex, the natural bent towards violent sexual encounters, and more are discussed and related between the two conceptual worlds Johnson is exploring. Highlighting any number of fascinating points would be possible here. For example, discussing the prohibitions in Leviticus, Johnson points out that the focus seems to be upon aspects of generation, not on the inherent evil of whatever acts are being ruled out (162-165). Whether this could foster some additional discussion of morality and ethics is beyond Johnson’s point here, but certainly could be worth exploring.

Johnson is even in his messaging throughout the book, rarely claiming to have some grandiose answer to questions about science and Christianity. Instead, his modest conclusion is that he “retain[s] a healthy and hopeful agnostic curiosity about the integration of these two conceptual worlds–evolutionary and Hebraic–whether they can be reconciled and how so” (201). He goes on to express hope that the discussion here will lead to colleagues correcting, agreeing, discussing, opening dialogue, etc. on these topics. I wholeheartedly agree.

What Hath Darwin to do with Scripture? breathes new life into the interplay between Christianity and science. It’s a book that demands careful reading and reflection and, I hope, will spur discussion of the dialogue into new, unexplored directions. Highly recommended.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “The God of Monkey Science” by Janet Kellogg Ray

The God of Monkey Science: People of Faith in a Modern Scientific World by Janet Kellogg Ray explores the interactions of Christians and science in a post-Covid world.

The book explores many topics related to Christianity and science. Kellog Ray includes historical notes about the ways Christians have interacted with science, examples from more recent events such as the rise of the Intelligent Design movement and associated anti-evolution arguments, and even the recent Covid-19 pandemic and Evangelicalism’s largescale embracing of anti-science positions in that time period as well.

A particularly fun aside- one of my blog posts is quoted in the book. Kellogg Ray quotes from one of my posts about leaving my former denomination and how science was a big part of that.

What is especially helpful in the book is how so many real examples of anti-science thinking are provided and then contrasted with context. Some of the examples are especially egregious, such as the attempts to portray Anthony Fauci as anti-mask because of an early video in which he talked about not needing to wear masks at the time but then later, following additional, substantial studies, switching the messaging. This is part of how sciience works–updating guidelines and expectations based on additional or new evidence.

The book is not at all a bash-fest on Christians, either. The author is unabashedly an evangelical Christian, but she writes the book as a kind of long form exhortation to Christians to do better, have humility, and perhaps listen to experts when it comes to science. It’s written in a winsome manner, and will hopefully make some rethink the way they approach science reporting and misinformation.

The God of Monkey Science is a refreshing look at the need for Christians to interact with science more honestly and fruitfully. It is recommended.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Science and the Doctrine of Creation: The Approaches of Ten Modern Theologians” edited by Geoffrey H. Fulkerson and Joel Thomas Chopp

The question of how the doctrine of creation interacts with science (and vice versa) has loomed large in the past few hundred years. Many theologians have offered a whole realm of responses to questions about how these two relate. Science and the Doctrine of Creation brings the views of ten theologians to the forefront, highlighting through essays by different authors the way these theologians interacted with science and creation.

The theologians in this collection range from the late 19th century through the early 21st century. They also span a wide range of denominational backgrounds. This gives the volume a robust look at several different strands of theological thought being applied to the doctrine of creation (though see below, on women).

B.B. Warfield has been at the center of several debates regarding Christianity and science because several different sides want to enlist his writings in their defense. Bradley J. Gundlach clarifies that Warfield’s views on evolution–that it’s complicated–while also showing Warfield’s fascinating piloting of a doctrine of creation that navigates several hot button topics in fairly unique ways. Jürgen Moltmann’s doctrine of creation operates seemingly apart from science, though the author of the essay on his theology, Stephen N. Williams, shows that there is more subtlety there that might provide a way forward in science-faith discussions. Abraham Kuyper’s discussion of science and creation is highlighted by aspects that show that one’s approach and intent may matter just as much as their outcomes, argues Craig Bartholomew (my words summarizing some of his content–see esp. 40-41). These and other highlights of the book show just how deep readers can go in thinking in different ways about the doctrine of creation in light of modern science.

I was disappointed by the overall lack of women in this volume. Only one of the ten essays was written by a woman, and not a single woman was selected as a subject of any of the essays. It is remarkable to me that among all modern theologians, not even one woman was selected to give voice to her view on science and creation. This is particularly egregious given that many women are involved in studying the intersection of the doctrine of creation and science. The book would have been improved by diversifying its sample of theologians and authors.

Science and the Doctrine of Creation shows a broad spectrum of views on the titular topics, but doesn’t integrate as many diverse voices as it may have been nice to see. That said, readers interested in Christianity and science will want to check out this book, particularly to see how wide the range of views there are even among just 10 theologians.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation” by Gavin Ortlund

Augustine looms large over the course of church history, and he’s frequently enlisted by people on various–and sometimes contradictory–sides of theological debates. Gavin Ortlund, in Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation, seeks to show that Augustine’s doctrine of creation has much to teach us to this day about not just the theological underpinnings of a doctrine of creation but also humility in conclusions.

The first question to ask, though, is whether Augustine should be relevant to today’s debates over the doctrine of creation. Often, Christians today (at least in the United States) focus on heated discussions about evolution, death before the Fall, the historicity of Adam, and related issues. Much of the discussion is about science–or what counts as science. What can Augustine have to say to such debates, when he predated them by 1500 years? In one stirring account, Ortlund answers the question:

Imagine a young man in his late teen years. He has recently moved to the city to go to school. In the course of his study, he becomes convinced that the Genesis creation account is inconsistent with the most sophisticated intellectual trends of the day. He rejects the Christian faith in which he was raised, giving his twenties to youthful sins and worldly ambition.

Eventually, he encounters CHristians who hold to a different interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, and his intellectual critique of Christianity is undermined. He enters into a time of indecision and deep angst. His mother continues to pray for him. Finally, after much personal struggle, he has a dramatic conversion experience.

This is the testimony of St. Augustine…

Ortlund, 1

It’s a powerful introduction to the rest of the book, because as one reads it, it’s clear that it’s talking about a modern youth in college, learning about geology or evolution in depth for the first time. In fact, it’s Augustine, whose story parallels that of many today. His own struggles can help illumine some of the most controversial topics today.

Perhaps the greatest contribution Augustine brings, though, is a deep sense of humility regarding the creation account. Augustine certainly had strong opinions about how it could be read, but he also realized he could be wrong. Ortlund notes that Augustine emphasized the need to “patiently endure different (orthodox) views” and quotes Augustine’s warnings against presumptuousness of assuming one is correct and obviously so (91-92). Indeed, Augustine goes on to argue that “mischievous arguments” made about the meaning of the sacred text regarding Creation goes against the very purpose of their writing, namely, to produce charity in us (92-93). While he notes that there are some certainties regarding the creation texts, he also puts some of the most hotly disputed topics of our day into the “uncertain” category. For example, the meaning of the days in the Genesis text is one thing that he sees as uncertain, and it is clear that no one can rightly charge Augustine with allegedly giving in to some kind of “evolutionary viewpoint” as Christians who note the same today are often charged with (93-94).

Augustine’s patience and humility arises, in part, from a kind of pastoral concern for certainty (or lack thereof) regarding articles of faith. Ortlund writes, “Augustine can be open to uncertainty because he regards the purpose of theological inquiry to be godliness… we do not always know in advance what will lead to godliness, and so there should be an openness and humility in the posture with which we inquire about the doctrine of creation… Augustine[‘s] patien[ce]…. is [due to] his concern for the spiritual consequences of particularly interpretations. Thus, in the Confessions, he asks, ‘How can it harm me that it should be possible to interpret these words in several ways, all of which may yet prove to be true?'” (97, emphasis his).

The doctrine of creation itself is one Augustine wrote much upon and some of it helps highlight forgotten aspects of the doctrine in our own time. Whether it’s a concern for divine priority in creation (28ff) or Trinitarian agency (43ff); whether it’s the place of angels in creation (as the light of creation? see 125-128) or the importance of temporal beauty (154ff), Augustine’s insights will surprise readers at times while also directing potential further studies into the doctrine of creation.

Augustine also had points that are relevant to some of today’s hotly debated topics, though. For example, the question of animal death looms large in our own time due to charges about death before the fall and evolution, but Augustine, over a thousand years before Darwin, saw the death of Adam and Eve as something they “contracted” from the world that was already present in animals (154). This leaves open the possibility of animal and even pre-human death before the fall, so long as one is willing to have some sort of specially created or even made immortal human pair to have as an originating couple. Again, Augustine could not have been influenced by our modern science, so his insights into possibilities related to this and other topics allow us to glean a kind of unbiased view of the breadth of orthodox options in the modern creation debate.

Ortlund turns to questions of the Fall and evolution as well, noting that Augustine’s theology, while not developed to accommodate biological evolution, could certainly be developed in that direction. For example, Augustine argued that Adam and Eve held a “conditional immortality” that was, in part, granted through the tree of life (209).

Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation is a work that can change the tone of the modern debates over creation. By asking an ancient interpreter not to weigh in on modern debates, but instead to speak to the doctrine of creation and then asking that doctrine some of the modern questions, Ortlund has presented a fascinating case for carefully reading and interacting with the text. I very highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Christianity and science, historical theology, or theological retrieval.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Thinking About Evolution: 25 Questions Christians Want Answered” by Anjeanette Roberts, Fazale Rana, Sue Dykes, and Mark Perez

Reasons to Believe is a science-faith thinktank that operates from the perspective of Old Earth Creationism. Essentially, they hold that the earth and universe are billions of years old, but that God created progressively. Individual species or families were created by God ex nihilo at different points in time. Recently the organization published a book, Thinking About Evolution: 25 Questions Christians Want Answered that explores the evidence for evolution.

The book is written around 25 chapters corresponding to the eponymous questions. These questions are: “Does Evolution Explain Life on Earth?; Is Religious Belief the Only Reason to Question Evolution?; What’s Philosophy Got to Do With Evolution?; How Can We Keep Our Thinking Free from Fallacy?; Is Evolution Really a Problem for the Christian Faith?; What is Chemical Evolution?; Is Microevolution a Fact?; Does Microbial Evolution Prove Evolution is True>’ Is Natural Selection the Blind Force Driving Evolution?; Is There a Novelty Problem for Evolution?; What to Do with Teleology in Evolution? Can Evolutionary Processes Generate New Information?; Does Evolution Explain the Fossil Record?; What about the Genetic Similarity between Humans and Chimps?; Are the Hominin Fossils Evidence for Human Evolution?; Did Humans and Neanderthals Interbreed?; Did Neanderthals Create Art?; Can Evolutionary Processes Explain the Origin of Eukaryotic Cells?; Can Evolution Repeat Outcomes?; Can Evolutionary Co-option Explain the Irreducible Complexity of Biochemical Systems?; Has Evolution Refuted the Watchmaker Argument?; Is the Watchmaker Really Blind?; Is Junk DNA Evidence for Evolution?; Why Are We Progressive Creationists?; What if Big-E Evolution is True?

I wrote all these chapter titles out because it’s worth seeing that this is the content of the book. At a glance, readers interested in science-faith intersections probably have a number of assumptions about the answers to these questions, given the creationist background of Reasons to Believe. These assumptions may line up, but there are also sure to be some surprises mixed in there. For example, microevolution is most definitely affirmed as factual, but a significant amount of ink is spilled about trying to guarantee Neanderthals aren’t in any way associated with humans.

One thing that’s evident throughout the book is that there are numerous assumptions guiding the way evidence is interpreted by the authors. This is, of course, totally impossible to avoid. We all have assumptions that go into how we interpret anything. But some of these assumptions are put forward as almost obvious statements as though all Christians can or should agree. For example, in the chapter on “Is Evolution Really a Problem for the Christian Faith?” by Fazale Rana, he writes “Science should have no problem detecting a Creator’s handiwork–and even determining a Creator’s attributes,” (72). Prior to this remarkable statement, SETI is cited as an example of scientists attempting to find intelligence based on scientific assumptions. But of course, SETI and similar endeavors are predicated on the notion that intelligence wants to be discovered or that it is, in principle, discoverable. Yet many Christians may oppose this. For example, there is a lengthy tradition and numerous writings related to the hiddenness of God. Paul K. Moser, a philosopher, has written a few books on the topic of evidence for God only being available purposively (for example, The Elusive God). If, as Christian theology affirms, God is personal, then it seems quite possible that a person would have reasons to perhaps hide from or not be available for evidence in conventional means, especially given that person’s goals may be relational to humans rather than purely evidentiary. All of this is to say that certain assumptions made by the authors in this book are worth challenging. The very model that Reasons to Believe operates upon–a kind of strong concordism in which science will ultimately reveal God (or, minimally, unveil that the Bible is unchallenged by science, properly interpreted)–relies upon such assumptions. If they’re mistaken, significant questions about the inputs and outputs of the model would be raised.

The evidence for evolution is extremely strong. I don’t think the authors would seriously dispute that statement, given that they frankly acknowledge microevolution and microbial evolution. However, when confronted by this evidence, and the rather reasonable inference that one can move from small changes over large time to bigger changes, the authors shut down. For example, in the chapter on microbial evolution, Anjeanette Roberts writes, “But does microbial evolution involve production of totally novel protein products, cellular structures, cellular functions, metabolic pathways, or stepping stones to major transitions between kinds of organisms? …That’s highly debatable” (106). One might want to debate this, but the mere fact that just a sentence before, it had been acknowledged that microbial evolution does occur means that such “stepping stones” are in place. If we can observe microbial evolution in such small time spans, then given hundreds of millions of years, it seems to be little more than a lack of imagination to insist that such larger changes could not possibly occur. Of course, that’s not how strongly worded the objection is here. Throughout the book, the authors dance along this fine line of implying the evidence for evolution is highly contentious or questionable while also having to acknowledge that evolution just does occur.

For example, Sue Dykes makes it clear that she questions the existence of transitional forms, but then has to explain away the transitional forms that have been discovered in the fossil record (161ff). The reason to dismiss transitional forms appears to be that Dykes prefers to define transitional forms in the now-archaic way Darwin did as finding exacting step-by-step A-to-B lineages that we know for certain show the transition from A-Z. But this is not how evidence works. If we had the evidence to plays someone at the scene of a crime at the time in which it occurred with the weapon and intent to commit murder, someone coming along and saying “Ah ha! You cannot tell me the exact sequence in which the victim was stabbed!” wouldn’t be a compelling reason to question the suspect’s guilt. The sequence is there, though the order may be hotly contested. Examples Dykes investigates include whale evolution, which is quite frankly a compelling series of transitional fossils. Why are they questioned, then? Because there is the occasional discovery that may perhaps have a fossil dated differently or one form showing up earlier than expected! But that doesn’t really undermine the sequence any more than having one’s ancestor (grandparent, say) still alive today would mean one could not have been born yet. On a total-species level, it would be surprising to see entire species that were successful and ubiquitous enough for there to have actually been preserved fossils of them just dying off the exact moment a somewhat more adapted creature came along. Moreover, it is difficult for me to take seriously the questioning of transitional fossils when so many striking examples have been found. Not just the ones that exist in the public’s memory writ large, but also numerous amazing examples, like turtles, having “halfway” point type fossils. I wrote about some of these elsewhere. Again, do we have every one of the presumably hundreds of species preserved to get from point A-to-Z? No. But missing C, D, F, G, H, and I hardly precludes calling B, E, J, and M transitional forms.

The authors occasionally fall into the unfortunate position of implying that because scientists have updated predictions and models due to changing evidence, we can question the core idea. Sue Dykes writes about Hominin fossils, “It seems that the more we dsicover and the more we test, the more frustrated paleontologists become. New discoveries regularly undermine the ideal of a clear, single evolving lineage leading to modern humankind” (177). Well yes, because I doubt there are any paleontologists who actually that that “ideal” is attainable in actuality. Evolution is messy. It doesn’t produce simple chains. There are offshoots, branches that break off, never to come back, divergence, convergence, and more. Simply having a ton of fossils that fit to show evolution is occurring and not being able to find an “ideal” lineage doesn’t undermine the evidence for evolution. The stunning number of fossils and traits that can be found amongst them instead shows the compelling notion of evolution over time.

I was also surprised to see Fazale Rana seem to argue that evolutionary biologists would think that if we turned back the clock, evolution would just repeat results (225). I believe it was in Dawkins’s work that I read (reading it as a skeptic of evolution, more than a decade ago) that evolution would do the exact opposite. The metaphor was a videotape: if we rolled back the tape, the movie evolution would play would be completely different, because the forces acting upon nature that drive evolution couldn’t possibly be replicated. This seems to undermine the whole chapter in which Rana makes this statement about replicating results. Convergent evolution doesn’t really seem to be evidence against evolution, either, which is the somewhat confusing point that may be alluded to in this chapter (“Can Evolution Repeat Outcomes?”). Instead, Rana argues convergence points to progressive creationism due to shared features. But this was not established in the text, and the point Rana made about rewinding the clock seems to me to be mistaken.

A few chapters hint at more difficult problems for evolution. The question of irreducible complexity was compelling to me for quite a while, but though the authors here make the case, it still seems that co-option is but one of the several possible ways evolution could account for seemingly irreducible complexity. As has been pointed out by others much more in the know than I, irreducible complexity itself is something of a construct. For example, it may be the case that taking out a part of the eye that allows us to focus upon something would make the eye unable to function as an eye, but it would hardly make it useless. The mere ability to sense light/dark would be extremely advantageous on a number of levels. Another problem that is raised in the book is the question of generating information. I myself have become pretty skeptical of this argument, though, because it seems something of a category error. Yes, there is a strong metaphorical connection between human written language and the “language” of DNA, but to equate them to the point that is required for introducing intelligent design into the process is a stretch at best. Rana makes his case by pointing to the stunning improbability of randomly producing a functional cytochrome (153), but the very nature of evolution makes this nonsensical. Evolution isn’t randomly generating series of DNA strands in order to, hopefully, come up with a functional and beneficial protein. Instead, it is operating upon existing, functional (and even deleterious or non-functional) features. Simply stating blind probabilities is to massively overstate the range of actual possibility.

The concluding chapter is perhaps the best chapter of its kind I’ve read in any creationist literature anywhere. Anjeanette Roberts writes, “there are many faithful Christians today who confess Christ as Lord, hold the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, and believe in real miraculous events… while also holding that God used the initial conditions he established at the creation along with evolutionary processes to accomplish his purposes for life’s biological history on Earth” (282).

Later, she writes, “After all, it is not one’s view of origins that determines a person’s Christian status” (ibid). Then, she writes this great counterfactual: “If at some point in the future, the scientific evidence shows that evolutionary mechanisms are the mechanisms of god’s creation, then interpretive models… will fill a needed space in biblical Christian thought,” (283). Though not fully stating it, it is clear the implications here are that Roberts, and presumably other RTB scholars, are acknowledging that if evidence existed to convince them evolution were true, they would utilize some of the models for reconciling that with biblical truth that they already see as viable. This is an extraordinarily honest position, particularly for a creationist organization. Too often, people accuse creationists of being liars and/or deceivers, obfuscating truth. I have noted numerous points of disagreement with the book in my own review here. But let it be said that I think that RTB has done extremely valuable work, and that they’ll continue to do so. I can’t help but admire the integrity and honesty of their scholars, and am honored to work alongside them for God’s Kingdom.

Thinking About Evolution will give readers a solid base for understanding the most prominent old earth creationist perspective. While I think that the case it builds against evolution is lacking, I appreciate the candor, the integrity, and the genuine searching for truth the authors are pursuing. Readers interested in the intersection of Christianity and science will appreciate this book.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “The Genealogical Adam and Eve” by S. Joshua Swamidass

There is little doubt that an enormous amount of ink has been spilled over the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve given an evolutionary account. Often, the charge against theistic evolutionists is that they cannot or do not affirm what is thought to be required of biblical theology related to Adam and Eve. At other times, appeal to Adam and Eve is looked down upon as a quaint, outdated, and clearly mistaken view. Into that fray steps S. Joshua Swamidass with the book The Genealogical Adam & Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. Swamidass argues that there is a way past these seemingly endless debates.

The genealogical hypothesis is central to Swamidass’s argument. Swamidass’s thesis is genealogical, not genetic. Genetics can be used to provide a “tunnel vision” for ancestry (31), but genealogical ancestry is a broader, common language way of looking at ancestry. The hypothesis has 6 main components: 1. Adam and Eve lived recently in the Middle East; 2. they are the genealogical ancestors of everyone (specifically by AD 1); 3. They are specially, or de novo created; 4. interbreeding occurred between the lineage of Adam and Eve and others; 5. no additional miracles apart from special creation of Adam and Eve are allowed (for the purpose of the hypothesis); 6. assume two findings of evolutionary science: human descent common with the great apes and that the size of the human population never dipped to a single couple (p. 26-27).

Swamidass argues that rather than looking at trying to tie all humans together genetically, we may be able to do so genealogically. Once one traces ancestry back by a certain number of generations, one will effectively have so many ancestors that the number would exceed the number of humans who were alive at the time. That’s an absurd conclusion, of course, but it doesn’t account for the way that family trees intermingle and mesh together in many different ways. Nevertheless, due to the exponential way that tracing one’s family history back, Swamidass argues that it’s likely that we can argue that all humans have common ancestors as recently as several thousand years ago.

Swamidass takes this extrapolation and notes that because of this, one can affirm most of the major tenets of traditional Christian belief regarding Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve could have been specially created–science cannot test for this either way–a few thousand years ago, and still be the common ancestors of all living humans. What his thesis does have, of course, is humans outside the garden. But Swamidass notes that even traditional readings of the text have struggled with that due to questions of who Adam and Eve’s children married, or who Cain was afraid of, etc.

One could easily see how Swamidass’s hypothesis could be tweaked in different ways depending upon one’s own conclusions about the data or theological presuppositions. Some theistic evolutionists would likely dispute thesis 3, while creationists would dispute several theses. But what Swamidass has done is effectively offered a possible solution to the many, many science-faith controversies related to Adam and Eve. One can, on Swamidass’s thesis, affirm both the findings of evolutionary biology as well as virtually every aspect of the traditional view of Adam and Eve. The extraordinary import of this should not be understated: Swamidass has offered a defense of a hypothesis that virtually anyone who has written on the topic will need to contend with.

The Genealogical Adam & Eve is sure to be a controversial book. Yet hopefully, within that controversy, there can be a discussion of coming to agreement on specific doctrinal topics, and a broadening of areas where unity can be found. Swamidass has done serious, scholarly work here that anyone who wants to deal with the topic of Adam and Eve will need to address.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture” by Carol Hill

There are many textbooks out there purporting to put forward the best view of science from a Christian standpoint, but most come from a young earth creationist point of view. Carol Hill, with A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture, provides an alternative that unites mainstream science with thoughtful reading of the biblical text. But the book is more than one might think if one gets the impression of a dry textbook from this description–it’s an introduction to how Christians can think about numerous science-faith topics, a survey of competing literature, and an analysis of various views of science and faith.

The book is divided into 10 chapters, beginning with a chapter that defines the notion of a “worldview approach” to science and Christianity. A worldview approach is a holistic look at how to approach the Bible, scripture, and more–allowing one to integrate insights from various positions into one coherent whole. Hill outlines the basic premise of the worldview approach as: “the Bible in its original context records historical events if considered from the worldview of the biblical authors who wrote it” (12-13). This is important: it allows Hill to affirm historicity of the biblical account while not settling for simplistic answers in interpretation.

The second through fourth chapter deal with the Six Days of Creation, the Garden of Eden, and the book of Numbers/Chronologies of Genesis respectively. The chapter on the Garden of Eden is of particular interest because Hill both makes a strong argument for a real, true to life location for the Garden of Eden while also noting that the Flood Geology that young earth creationists so often espouse cannot account for the actual location of the Garden. The ages of the patriarchs is also a notable section as Hill notes the numbers being used in specifically theological and analogical ways by the author.

Chapters 5-7 deal with Noah’s Flood from a number of points, and it is an extremely helpful section both for analyzing the young earth creationist/flood geology account and for noting the language of the Bible and the local nature of the Flood. Hill, once again, sides with seeing the Flood as historical (as she sees the Garden of Eden as a historical possibility) while also noting the real difficulties with a literalistic reading. A number of interesting points related to Mount Ararat and the attempts to locate the actual Ark are made here, as well. The analysis is keen, showing difficulties with various theories, while also showing the misguided nature of such attempts to find the Ark. Hill argues for a local flood, but does so both from the text and geology, offering a holistic approach to the question.

Chapter 8 considers evolution and genetics, noting the attempts by some to turn the word “kind” in the Bible into something that would allow for immense speciation after the Flood. Hill also notes some of the apparent problems with evolutionary theory, while also showing the evidence for evolution and how powerful that evidence is. Chapter 9 considers Adam and Eve. The question of people outside the Garden is not a problem for Hill’s “Worldview Approach” because she argues that the purpose of the authors was to write the story of God’s interaction with their ancestors and not to write the story of everybody everywhere at all times (151). Chapter 10 presents Hill’s view in short, “Putting it All Together” to present it to readers. Here, Hill outlines the entirety of her position, bringing together everything from the previous chapters.

I should note that the book is richly printed with color photography throughout. Like The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, this book uses the illustrations both for beauty and for specific points. The beauty of the book should not be understated, and the color photography helps it function as intended: a text that can be used to explore Christianity and science.

A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture is an invaluable text that presents, in readable form, a fairly comprehensive (though compact) view of Christianity related to some of the biggest questions that arise when considering science. Recommended.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

“We Believe in Dinosaurs” – The Ark Encounter Examined

The Ark Encounter is a controversial attempt to create a monument to what one group of people sees as biblical truth. “We Believe in Dinosaurs” documents the making of the Ark, both before and after, through several different lenses–a creationist working on the project, a geologist opposing it, an atheist protesting it, a woman who speaks in defense of creationism, a business owner hoping it will revitalize the town, a pastor who sees it as too closely uniting church and state, and a young Christian man who’s changed his mind. Recently, I had the chance to watch the documentary on PBS. It’s also available on Amazon.

One thing that makes the documentary so fascinating is that range of voices and perspectives it presents. Doug Henderson is the lead project designer at the Creation Museum and in the documentary he helped design the exhibits and leads a team making animals to go on the Ark, among other things. He’s a fully convinced Young Earth Creationist who believes the world is about 6,000 years old and that a global flood can account for the geologic record of our planet. He admits to having some doubts in the past, but that he resolved those doubts through a firm reliance on what he sees as the correct way to interpret the Bible. One of the most poignant moments of the documentary has him appealing to the camera with the notion that “I’m not crazy” and that he’s just as normal as anyone else, he just believes the Earth is young. It’s a rare, emotionally vivid moment in creation-evolution debates where the facade of certainty is stripped away and, as a viewer, one can witness that these are real people with real concerns. It’s powerful.

David Macmillan used to be a young earth creationist, and even donated enough to have his name on the wall at the Creation Museum. His own journey led him to question the truth of young earth creationism and he points out that it was a questioning of the rigidity of interpretation as well as scientific findings that caused him to change his view. As a viewer, he related to me quite a bit because his journey is very similar to my own.

Dan Phelps is a geologist who thinks the Ark Encounter is anti-science and has done the work to demonstrate it. But he rose to prominence in opposition to the project not because of geological disputes but due to his taking issue with tax dollars being used to supplement the building of the Ark. What was most alarming to him was that the Ark Encounter’s job applications at every level, whether project leader or janitor, required strict adherence to the full statement of faith of Answers in Genesis. This meant not only that atheists need not apply, as his op-ed got titled, but also that no Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, and even many, many Christians need apply either. To have this kind of hiring policy while also getting government money was alarming, and the documentary follows the fight against this government funding. Ultimately, this battle was lost and the Ark Encounter received grants and other aid from both state and local governments, despite claims both that the Ark is an evangelistic tool and the strict hiring practices.

One of the most alarming parts of the film is found when Jim Helten, President of the Tri-State Freethinkers (an atheist organization) who raised money to make billboards slamming the Ark Encounter and Creation museum as the “Genocide and Incest” museum is interviewed for the radio. What’s alarming about this is the way the Christian reacts to the atheist in this encounter. Jim alleges that the Ark implies incest and genocide because the flood kills everyone not on the ark, whether innocent or not, and then that the world has to get repopulated through incest because only Noah’s family was on the Ark. One can debate the nuance (or lack thereof) of Jim’s interpretation, but the Christian on the other end of the line turns around and immediately consigns Jim to hell. He says he’ll pray for Jim to not be in hell, but finally becomes unhinged and says “and there’ll be a million serpents biting your legs for eternity” as though that’s a reasonable response to Jim’s charges and his efforts to put up somewhat inflammatory billboards. Jim points out that he’s being threatened with eternal torture for asking for evidence. It’s another one of the moments that the documentary does so well of creating times to think and reflect and wonder. How is it possible that an ostensibly Christian person would think such a response was justified–and where did the line about the serpents come from?

A major aspect of the documentary is showing the Ark Encounter’s impact on the local community. It’s not clear what explicit promises were made, but it is clear that the people of Williamstown, Kentucky were given the impression that the Ark Encounter would bring a business boom to their community and help revitalize a downtown that Jamie Baker, interviewed in the documentary, said was so slow at times you could almost see tumbleweeds. The documentary covers several aspects of this hope, showing one group singing a song about their excitement related to the Ark Encounter. Just a few years later, that same place is a vacant facade, to go along with all the other places for sale or rent in a downtown that hasn’t been helped at all. One person in the documentary said they were promised shuttles would bring people into town to eat and shop, but that they only rarely see even a car driving through.

It is not clear, again, what promises were made to the people of Williamstown, but whatever hopes were raised have since, apparently, been crushed. The Ark Encounter isn’t helping the community in a monetary way so far as one can tell from the documentary. This, despite the city selling 78 acres of land to the Ark Encounter for $1 and giving them $175,000. This may not seem like a big problem–businesses make promises and bully people into helping them turn a profit all the time. But the Ark Encounter is an ostensibly Christian exhibit! Its staff has to subscribe to a strict statement of faith. One would expect integrity and openness from such people, not attacks on people who question their practices and attempts to block or obfuscate information related to their exhibit.

“We Believe in Dinosaurs” is a fascinating, challenging watch. It presents many sides, both sympathetic and not, related to the Ark Encounter. I haven’t even gone over several other people who show up in the documentary, and there’s much more there. I highly recommend it to anyone, given its broad range of interests from religious freedom, church and state issues, questions about science and faith, and more.

Links

What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions– I clarify the breadth of options available for Christians who want to interact on various levels with models of origins. I think this post is extremely important because it gives readers a chance to see the various positions explained briefly.

What is the relationship between Christianity and science?- An Overview of 4 Views– How should the Christian faith interact with science? Do they interact at all? I survey 4 major views on these and other questions.

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Origins Debate– Read a whole bunch more on different views within Christianity of the “origins debate.” Here I have posts on young and old earth creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolutionism, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

“Darwin Devolves” – Behe’s Rewriting of Evolution: A Critique from a Christian

Michale Behe’s latest book, Darwin Devolves, purports to demonstrate that a major challenge to evolution is that rather than producing new functions, the demonstrable changes that we can see in experimental science is due to “devolution” or loss-of-function in genes. Behe bases this, in part, on his “First Rule”: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution… Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain” (185). (It’s stated somewhat differently on the first page of the book: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: Break or blunt any functional gene whose loss would increase the number of a species offspring” – emphasis his.)

I am sympathetic to Behe’s project. As a Christian, I would prefer there to be testable, obvious proof that God exists, and Intelligent Design theory purports to be that for at least some kind of cosmic “intelligence.” On the flip side, I am also wary, because I recall Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s words that “a god who could be proved by us would be an idol” (DBWE 11, 260). I’m not convinced that God works in such a way as to leave tantalizing fingerprints all over everything for us to find. God is personal and we relate to God in a personal way, not in an abstract way that can remain impersonal or without challenge. For most of my life, I was a young earth creationist, and then spent several years studying apologetics and advocating ID theory. Since then, I’ve become much more skeptical of ID theories, and Behe’s book illustrates several of the reasons why.

Selection Effect

One of the biggest difficulties I have with Behe’s book here, as well as with ID in general, is that there is, of necessity, a selection effect happening in the examples used. That is, the human author making the argument must be selecting examples rather than showing the whole range of life and applying their theory to it (to do the latter would be prohibitively time-consuming and likely impossible). But because there is such human agency in selecting the examples, the tendency towards selecting those examples which most easily support one’s theory is at least possibly in play.

In Darwin Devolves, selections of which evidence is discussed appears to be a large part of the weight of the argument. Evidence is mustered from polar bears and the deleterious way they acquired (perhaps not the term Behe would use) “white” fur, from laboratory experiments with bacteria and fruit flies, and from the (in)famous Darwin’s Finches. In each case, it is shown (I believe demonstrated–though I admit I’m not an expert so it is possible that this is wrong) that the “evolution” of certain features (eg. different forms of beak, see p. 143ff) is not new information or beneficial mutations but rather mutations or deletions genetically that are acting on existing DNA in ways that Behe calls “devolutions” rather than evolution.

Though it seems contentious to change the terminology of genetic reshuffling/deleting on existing information to “devolution” when it seems most assuredly an example of evolution (if not, necessarily, fitting within Behe’s specific definition(s)–more on that below), assuming Behe is right here, it would be a fascinating argument if it carried the day. But Behe must demonstrate, for his argument to work and for evolution (again, his usage) to fail, that such deletions/reshuffling is the case in every single instance of purported evolution. That would be a monumental task (and likely impossible), but one way to approach it would be to broaden the selection of data and to take on some of the most powerful evidences of evolution. But here we see the selection of Behe appears to be quite artificial. In addition to the selection effect, Behe fails to note that the very thing he’s arguing shows the failure of evolution as a theory (loss-of-function, etc.) in a lab experiment for E. Coli are, in fact, an expected outcome for such a lab experiment, and the evidence for genuinely new information is dismissed.

Additionally, given Behe’s language about loss-of-function and his “first rule,” readers would be right to expect that the data would support loss-of-function as the predominant, if not the only, means by which scientists have been able to mention what they call evolution. But that is demonstrably not the case. Rice and Lang note:

In humans only ∼3.5% of exonic and splice site variants (57,137 out of 1,639,223) are putatively loss‐of‐function (Saleheen et al. 2017), and a survey of 42 yeast strains found that only 242 of the nearly 6000 genes contain putative loss‐of‐function variants (Bergström et al. 2014). 

Gregory Lang and Amber Rice ” Evolution unscathed: Darwin Devolves argues on weak reasoning that unguided evolution is a destructive force, incapable of innovation” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.13710

Behe’s challenge to evolution doesn’t mention these and other related facts. The selection effect is operating strongly here, and it is selecting out those aspects of the data that do not match the theory.

Misrepresentations and Language

Throughout the book, there were difficulties with Behe’s use of terminology and misrepresentations of arguments. The definition of “evolution,” for example, seems malleable to fit Behe’s needs. He begins by noting that Darwin’s own theory couldn’t account for genetic data (Darwin didn’t know about it) and so had to be modified. But as more modifications to the theory happen, Behe seems to take that as evidence that evolution is, minimally, in crisis. Chapter 4 is dedicated to the various ways scientists have modified the theory of evolution, according to Behe–in order to “shoehorn” various discoveries into it. But one would hardly discredit the theory of gravity due to the fact that it has been modified to account for more modern discoveries. Would Behe use the same charged language that we have “shoehorned” in modern science to the theory of gravity in order to discred it? Doubtful.

Additionally, Behe is quick to dismiss evolution and evidence for it as useless or baseless. For example, across pages 22-24 he notes various examples that have been said to have evolved and then asserts that deleting the word “evolved” doesn’t change the information in the sentence. For example, “Birds like the silky flycatcher… that are mistletoe specialists have evolved a ‘wiggle dance.'” Behe then asserts that no information is lost if one just says the birds “have a wiggle dance.” But this seems to be clearly untrue, for the claim that the birds “evolved” a wiggle dance would include in it inherited traits, genes, and behaviors, where as merely “having” a dance does not. Even if one is anti-evolution, the claim that deleting the word “evolved” from sentences like that doesn’t delete information seems puzzling.

Behe is also keen to discredit natural selection. On 99-100 he offers an example that he alleges proves that increased DNA is not due to selection but rather entirely to the amorphous term called “luck.” But renaming selection “luck” doesn’t really undermine the fact that Behe doesn’t seem to have an answer for how DNA increases within his “First Rule” system. Indeed, across these pages, he actually attributes the formation of DNA increase to environmental factors and having the increased DNA continue due to isolation. But that is exactly what evolutionary theory suggests–when populations are isolated, there is the chance for selection to operate differently one one group than on another. Behe saying this is “serendipity” or “luck” seems clear obfuscation on his part–avoidance of the fact that it is exactly due to factors alleged by evolution to drive natural selection that has led to increase in DNA.

Perhaps the part of the book is Behe’s charge that evolution must produce entirely new lifeforms, including new phyla, given enough time. In looking at Darwin’s finches, he argues that the changes among them is incredibly tiny, given the amount of time they’ve had as an isolated population. he asserts that it is “very unlikely” that an environmental factor is limiting their evolution (155) and goes on to ask whether 2 million years in isolation is too little time for evolution to make major changes. After noting that “profoundly different animal phyla… arose during the Cambrian explosion… in only about ten million years” (ibid), along with some other swift evolution, he incredibly states: “Surely we should expect at least one crummy new phylum, class, or order to be conjured by Darwin’s vaunted mechanism in the time the finches have been on the Galapagos. But no, nothing” (ibid). Behe’s claim is, frankly, absurd. I don’t know of any evolutionary biologist who suggests that entirely new phyla are a necessary outcome of long-term isolation. Additionally, to compare the emergence of phyla during the Cambrian–before life had even begun to walk the land–to the state of the islands is disingenuous to the highest degree. Remarkably, Behe does nothing to acknowledge the extreme differences between the examples he cited and the state of the islands; instead, he writes, “A surprising but compelling conclusion is that Darwin’s mechanism has been wildly overrated–it is incapable of producing much biological change at all” (ibid). There is can be no doubt that this strong conclusion is in no way demonstrated by the fact that finches didn’t transform into new phyla, but Behe draws these kind of strong conclusions from minimal data throughout the book.

Conclusion

Darwin Devolves is tantalizing in theory, but in practice it does not prove what it sets out to prove. It would be nice, as the dust jacket states, to come to the point where “It’s time to acknowledge the conclusion that only an intelligent mind could have designed life.” But with all those weighted terms comes a burden of proof that is not met in the text. I have no doubt that an intelligent mind–God–brought forth life, but I remain unconvinced that God did so in a way that required direct intervention throughout the process.

Links

What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions– I clarify the breadth of options available for Christians who want to interact on various levels with models of origins. I think this post is extremely important because it gives readers a chance to see the various positions explained briefly.

What is the relationship between Christianity and science?- An Overview of 4 Views– How should the Christian faith interact with science? Do they interact at all? I survey 4 major views on these and other questions.

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Origins Debate– Read a whole bunch more on different views within Christianity of the “origins debate.” Here I have posts on young and old earth creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolutionism, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.