God, the Universe and Darwin; The Jury Speaks.
Copyright, Richard Swancy Woodling, March 9, 2005. All rights reserved
At some point in life every one will ask themselves these fundamental questions; Who am I? Where did I come from? What is my purpose? Where am I going when I die? When pondering these questions one thing becomes crystal clear, your answers will result in your adoption of one of only two available world views. That you and the universe are either the result of a cosmic accident or the consequence of an intelligent design by an intelligent designer. The implications of your choice between these two world views are personally staggering. If you determine that everything and everyone is the result of a cosmic accident then it follows that; (1) there is no God; (2) there is no absolute moral truth as the truth is always relative to your situation; (3) there is no free will and your actions have no moral consequence. As a result, you will always conclude any given situation you are faced with in your best interest without regard; (4) and life is, in the final analysis, ultimately futile and meaningless. All science, philosophy, individuals, societies and governments are built on one or the other of these two world views. This conclusion is inescapable.
The search for the answers to these questions is ancient. Teleology is the study of the divine purpose in nature and the quest for its evidence. As its foundation, Teleology rejects pure naturalistic and mechanical explanations of cause. This philosophy involved the attention and time of many prominent scientists philosophers and theologians over the ages. In ancient Greece it captured the imagination of men such as, Plato, Diogenes, Aristotle and Socrates. Socrates once in a teleological debate with an opponent extolled the human eye as proof of the wisdom of the gods:
"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"
Aristotle used teleology to try to explain the harmony and causes of the natural world. He explained the process in this way. “when we have ascertained the thing's existence, we inquire as to its nature...when we know the fact we ask the reason”. Aristotle's teleological method was supported widely for over 2,000 years. A scientist once remarked that Aristotelian teleology "has been the ghost, the unexplained mystery which has haunted biology through its whole history."
These ancient thinkers would later influence the works of such European scientists, theologians and philosophers as Robert Boyle, William Paley, David Hume, St. Augustine of Hippo, Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, St. Thomas Aquinas, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, and William Paley.
Teleology dominated the search for the nature of the universe until an apparent challenge appeared with the introduction of the theories proposed by cosmologist Nicolaus Copernicus, astronomer Galileo Galilei, and philosopher Giordano Bruno. These new theories appeared to move man from center of the heavens to a relative backwater position. This greatly unsettled the Catholic Church. When questions arose concerning these new findings, Bruno unfortunately declared to the Vatican that Christianity was entirely irrational and contrary to philosophy as it could only be accepted through faith not evidence and therefore had no scientific basis. The Catholic church, as a reward for his musings, condemned him to death and burned him at the stake.
The final deathblow to teleology and a radical shift in the direction for answers about man and the universe occurred with the advent of the Charles Darwin. When Darwin arrived it was clear that he did not think that the universe or man had to be explained in terms of purpose. As a new atheist, Darwin set out to overturn the assumption that man and nature were anything but divine. As an illustration of this radical new approach he once posed the question, "'What would the Astronomer say to the doctrine that the planets moved [not] according to the laws of gravitation, but from the creator having willed each separate planet to move in its particular orbit?" When he introduced his new theory of evolution in 1859, which was originally titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”, it was widely viewed as the quintessential model of enlightened human reason in the Victorian age and it rocked the world of science, politics and religion. Why? Because when it came to making rational, scientific sense of how life unfolded on this planet the theory of evolution was almost impossible to resist. As evolution theory gained general acceptance it began to dominate all human endeavor and conduct. Today it forms the basis of all science, politics and philosophy. As an illustration of the breadth of its grip and influence you need look no further than its inclusion in the philosophy, politics and justifications of the butcher Adolf Hitler. Hitler was entranced with Darwin’s concept of favored races.
"The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature's efforts 'to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile" (Mein Kampf).
And then there is this quote from a speech in 1941:
“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”
This search for God, the purpose of the universe and mans place in it has once again heated up fueled by current discoveries in the fields of cosmology, biology and physics. The protagonists in this round are creation scientists and Christians versus evolutionists and naturalists. We will refer to these two groups herein as simply Christians and naturalists. The verbal sparring by these groups over their respective solutions to intelligent design versus random accident and chance has gotten to the point that it is time to put them in a venue that will determine who has the preponderance of the weight of evidence. And what better way to do this than with a jury. Why? So reasonable men can listen to testimony from both sides and render a verdict. Letting an unbiased jury decide seems perfectly reasonable since both camps appear intractable in their views. It also seems reasonable as both camps are armed with, upon analysis, only circumstantial evidence. The Christians have no evidence that fits the strict confines of the scientific method that their view of a grand design by God is correct. The naturalists have no incontrovertible evidence that anything, including the universe or the creatures that live in it, evolved through random process and blind chance according to the theories proposed by James Watson and Francis Crick, George Gamow, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking, et al. It’s obvious that, with only circumstantial evidence to be considered, the jury’s verdict will rest on which camp has the most compelling testimony and which testimony has the higher probability of being correct. This kind of jury determination is common in courts. A recent example is the trial in late 2004 of Scott Peterson in California. Scott was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child with virtually no physical evidence, no eyewitnesses, no murder weapon, and no obvious motive. Yet he was still convicted of premeditated 1st degree murder and sentenced to death. How did the jury convict him? They came to their verdict using the only tool available, probability. What are the odds, given the testimony presented, that he was innocent as he proclaimed? Yes, he could be innocent, nothing’s impossible, but the probability of his innocence approaches or exceeds 1 in 100,000 to be generous. What are the odds he is guilty? That probability is 1 in 10 or greater. So the jury, with no evidence other than circumstantial to consider, went with the better odds and so it will be here.
The Arguments
First let’s see what theories and arguments you the jury will examine. We will confine ourselves in this discussion to the Big Bang theory, The Anthropic Principal, the theory of Darwin macro-evolution and the theory of the evolutionary development of consciousness versus its polar opposite, dualism. A short simple explanation of each is now in order. The Big Bang theory, or the universe creation event, is among cosmologists and astrophysicists, the accepted explanation of how the cosmos we live in began. At some point in the distant past, or to be more precise, at the beginning of time and space, and for some yet unexplained reason there was a gigantic explosion, expansion which created time, space and everything in the universe we see today. The Anthropic Principal, is the principal espoused by Christians that the observable universe and everything in it was created in particular for humans to live in based upon the precise tuning of the 30 or so variables that make the observable universe possible. Macro-evolution is the theory proposed by Charles Darwin that states that all life from oak trees to human beings, evolved from a common one cell ancestor through the process of macro-evolution powered by genetic mutation and natural selection. Dualism, espoused by Christians is confined to the true nature of human beings; that we are both soul and body, that there is a ghost in the machine and that we are much more than the naturalists theoretic animated meat.
Foundations
To give a basic understanding of how these intractable camps came to their beliefs lets examine their philosophies and foundations. First the naturalists rely solely on the scientific method and its cousin methodological naturalism. These methods are best described by the four principals or tenants that underlie them. They are:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Any explanation of a phenomenon or group of phenomena that contains the supernatural or metaphysical is automatically dismissed by the scientific method as unreliable. Why? Because a supernatural explanation cannot be derived from scientific method principals. Consequently, if an explanation, theory or hypothesis does not fall within the tenants of the scientific method it automatically fails and cannot be accepted. It is important to note that the scientific method primarily exists because of the principal of causality. This principal states that no phenomenon or group of phenomena exists or can exist without cause, for everything has its cause. In addition science agrees that causality is directly observable in reality and causality is discoverable by man. These principals are based upon abductive reasoning which constitute the first stage of inquiry using the scientific method. Abduction is the process of adopting an explanatory hypothesis for a phenomenon under study. Abduction covers two operations, the selection and the formation of a plausible hypotheses. As a process of finding premises, it is the basis of interpretive reconstruction of causes (causality) and intentions, as well as the inventive construction of theories. If you search the archives of man you will discover the reason scientists and naturalists cling to these principals is that their use is directly responsible for unlocking the secrets of the universe that are presently known.
In contrast, the foundation of Christianity is built strictly on faith; faith in the word of God as set out in the Bible. Now at first glance this doesn’t seem like a fair fight. On one side of the fence you have eminent scientists, astrophysicists, molecular biologists etc., all learned men with impressive credentials, all using the scientific method, logic and reason in a duel against seeming weak spiritualists and faith based wannabes. However, the Christians contend that their arguments and conclusions are not weak at all but extremely strong and that upon critical review all to evident. Their conclusions, they claim, are additionally strengthened by a flood of current cutting edge evidence being discovered and published by their opponents. Well, if nothing else, this trial and the testimony introduced is going to be interesting.
Instructions To The Jury
The function of you the jury is to determine the truth of the facts. You are the judges of the facts presented in this trial. You determine the weight, effect and value of the presented evidence, as well as the credibility of the witnesses. You must consider and weigh the testimony of all witnesses who appear before you, and you will determine whether to believe any witnesses and the extent to which any witness should be believed. It is your responsibility to consider, without prejudice, any conflicts in testimony which may arise during the course of this trial. Your decision as to any fact in the case is final.
Your determination of the facts in this case must be based upon the presented evidence only. Evidence consists of the testimony of the witnesses. It also includes exhibits, which are documents or other things introduced into evidence.
You should keep an open mind and not express any opinion about the case until after you have heard all of the evidence. Sympathy must not influence your decision. Nor should your decision be influenced by prejudice or any other factor.
Arguments, statements and remarks are not evidence, and you should disregard anything said which is not supported by evidence or by your own general knowledge and experience.
It is not necessary that every fact be proven directly by a witness or an exhibit. A fact may be proven indirectly by other facts or circumstances, from which it usually and reasonably follows according to the common experience and observation of mankind. This is called circumstantial evidence, which you are to consider along with other evidence in the case.
You have a right to consider all the evidence in the light of your own general knowledge and experience in the affairs of life, and to take into account whether any particular evidence seems reasonable and probable. However, if you have personal knowledge of any particular fact in this case such knowledge may not be used as evidence.
We will use the best evidence available from each group with no preset notion as to an outcome by you. We will just be presenting the facts as they are offered by each group. All facts, declarations and testimony presented here were taken from various recognized authoritative source materials. They will be presented in this fashion:
1) There will be an introductory section to present an overview of the subject matter under review i.e. “The Anthropic Principal”
2) Each side will then present testimony on the subject i.e. “Naturalist Testimony”
3) There will be a conclusion section at the end of each sides testimony i.e. “Conclusion”
4) When all testimony for each section is given there will be a general conclusive overview made. This will be under the heading summary i.e. ”Summary”
The only statements that might be considered biased or partial will be found in the sections marked ”Summary”. These summaries are by the author. You are free, as the jury, to disregard the conclusions in the “Summary” sections or restate them at your will if you disagree. With this background in place lets submit the evidence.
The Big Bang, The Mother of All Explosions
The Big Bang event is accepted today by cosmologists as the best explanation for the creation of the known universe. The first hint of the Big Bang came from Edwin Hubble in 1929. Hubble discovered, much to his astonishment, that the farther away an observed galaxy was the more the spectrum of its light red shifted. This prompted him to propose that this red shift was proportional to the galaxies observed distance from us. He coined the term “recession” from these observations. Another puzzling aspect was that the speeds of these recessions were tremendous and increased with the apparent distance of the galaxy; additionally this phenomenon was observed everywhere in the sky Hubble looked; all the galaxies seemed to be speeding away from ours! From this observation Hubble concluded that the universe was expanding.
In the 1950s, there were two theories proposed as to the origin of the universe. The first was called the Steady State Theory. It had been put forward by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle and held that the universe was homogeneous in space and time and had remained that way forever. A rival and more controversial theory sought to incorporate the expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble into its framework. Physicists, led by George Gamow, argued that Hubble’s discovery of expansion inferred that the distance separation between galaxies must have been smaller at some point in the past. If one stretched this idea to its limit, it meant that the universe had been infinitely dense and hot or a singularity at one point. Using the laws of physics, Gamow and his colleagues were able to show that the explosion or expansion of the singularity corresponded to the moment of the creation of the universe. Everything in the universe had emerged from this cataclysmic creation event astronomers now call the Big Bang. The conflict between these two theories was ultimately resolved by Penzias and Wilson in 1965. They had been using an ultra-sensitive microwave receiving system to study radio emissions from the Milky Way when they found an unexpected radio background noise with no obvious explanation or source. It came from all directions and, after repeated checks, it appeared to emanate from outside the Galaxy. Penzias and Wilson consulted with Princeton physicist Robert H. Dicke, who had theorized that if the universe had been created according to the Big Bang theory, a background radiation with a temperature of 3° Kelvin would exist uniformly throughout the universe. Dicke visited Bell Labs and confirmed that the unexpected radio signal Penzias and Wilson detected was, indeed, the mysterious predicted cosmic background radiation, evidentiary proof of the Big Bang.
The predicament for the naturalists is their struggle to explain it. How can something come from nothing? What was the cause? How could all the matter that comprises the known universe emanate from a singularity, or point of zero dimension? Black holes, another form of a singularity, have gravitational fields so enormous that even light cannot escape. As a consequence the Big Bang is not possible under the known laws of physics.
Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe including time did in fact have a beginning and all evidence supports the Big Bang singularity as the cause. Under the principal of causality there certainly had to be a cause for this beginning. Remember the Big Bang occurred before there was space and time. Think of it this way, you are an extra dimensional observer outside and above our yet to come into existence universe. You observe no space; no up or down, no left or right, no width or breadth and no time. There is absolute nothingness. And then suddenly out of this nothingness there is an explosion, expansion that spews out unthinkable amounts of material and radiation that ultimately expands, cools and forms our observable universe. Several key questions arise from this observation; can something come from nothing; where did it come from? This conundrum is such a huge problem that elaborate theories have been developed by naturalists in an attempt to explain the Big Bang away.
Naturalists Testimony
A group of theories have surfaced to challenge the dominance of the Big Bang. Many of them are variations on the steady state model of Fred Hoyle and the cyclic universe. These theories represent current understanding. We will present two theories from these groups. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of Cambridge University described one such theory in an article published in an online edition of Science. The theory purposes an infinite cyclic universe; a universe with no beginning and no end. The theory proposes that the universe is and always will be and that it is cyclic. In each cycle, the universe somehow refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard Big Bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates for an as yet unexplained reason as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, all matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An unknown and unobservable energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle. Sir Martin Rees of the Royal Society and a Research Fellow at Cambridge states:
"There have been many ideas over the last 20 years, Steinhardt and Turok have injected an imaginative new speculation. Their work emphasizes the extent to which we may need to jettison common sense concepts, and transcend normal ideas of space and time, in order to make real progress.”
The cyclic universe proposed by Steinhardt and Turok represents a combination of standard physical concepts and ideas from the emerging fields of string theory and M-theory, which are ambitious efforts to develop a theory unifying all physical forces and particles, the dream of Einstein. Under their cyclic theory, the universe would exist as two infinitely large parallel sheets, like two sheets of paper separated by a microscopic distance. This separation is an extra, or fifth unseen dimension. The theory proposes that at our current phase in the history of the universe, the sheets are expanding in all directions, gradually spreading out and dispersing all the matter and energy they contain. This theory further proposes that after trillions of years, when they become essentially empty, they enter a "stagnant" period in which they stop stretching and begin to move toward each other as the fifth dimension undergoes a collapse.
Eminent theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking proposed a cyclic model that always was and will be based on quantum mechanics. This model, graphically represented, is a sphere thereby avoiding the need for a singularity. His model is supported by his mathematic proofs.
Conclusion
Understanding is a process. This has always been the trend from the days of Ptolemy and the Earth centered universe through Copernicus to the discoveries of relativity by Albert Einstein. It is apparent that we do not have all the answers at this time, but we are confident that the knowledge will be acquired. This knowledge most likely will come from the new areas of scientific investigation, quantum mechanics and string theory.
Christian Testimony
What is the Christians response to the Big Bang and the naturalist alternate theories? First we need to produce as evidence that the creation of the universe out of nothing, presently acknowledged by theorists is echoed in the Bible in the book of Genesis.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created (out of nothing) the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1: 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
In Hebrew verse 1 above is:
“Bereshet Bara Elohim et ha-Shamayim et ha-Ereytz.”
The Hebrew word for create comes in three distinct forms:
Bara: create out of nothing Its meaning may be extended to include any act transcending the ordinary.
Asah: make, fashion, Fabricate out of
Yatsa: Form from
Create, Bara, as used in Genesis verse 1, specifically means did create out of nothing. Christians have never disputed or varied from the biblical account. Interestingly, the biblical revelation of creation is also an exact image of the cosmologists Big Bang event where the known universe arose out of nothing. The only difference is the time involved, an issue that we will defer.
The Bible even sets out the principal of an expanding universe first noticed by Hubble.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Naturalists on the contrary have had an extremely difficult time with the Big Bang theory for precisely the same reason. Upon reflection, the overpowering conclusion by Christians is that the Big Bang and the creation of the cosmos can only be explained by the authorship of God. It is extremely important to note that in proposing alternate theories to dismiss the Big Bang, naturalists completely abandon their foundation, the scientific method. All these alternate theories seem to have one object, to propose convenient alternative to the existence of God.
Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok indirectly confess to this in their cyclic universe theory by stating that; (1) in each cycle of expansion the universe somehow refills with hot, dense matter and radiation; (2) this expansion accelerates for a yet undetermined cause; (3) after trillions of years the expansion stalls (for some undetermined reason); (4) and an unknown and unobservable energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle. None of the components in their theory are observable, verifiable or re-creatable contrary to the scientific method. Their theory also contradicts the principal of causality.
Stephen Hawking in his version of a steady state model takes a different approach by introducing imaginary time and numbers in his mathematics to dismiss the Big Bang, the singularity and God. Neither imaginary time nor imaginary numbers exist in the real world so their use by Hawking in describing the universe in his theory cannot be authentic. Even Hawking makes this admission:
“Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities.... When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.” (Hawking, S.W. 1988. A Brief History of Time, pp. 138-139).
He abandons the search for truth, the foundations of the scientific method, and the principal of causality to postulate a solution to the dilemmas posed by the Big Bang. At least, though, Hawking admits his motive.
"But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have no beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
These alternate theories are based on quantum mechanics and current string theory. String theory states that all constituent matter is composed of unobservable strings or vibrations of energy. Coincidentally, the vibrational energy component of string theory fits the creation story as detailed in Genesis whi1ch states that God spoke (used vibration energy) the universe into existence.
Although quantum mechanics and string theory are exciting, viable scientific fields of investigation, the problem for naturalists is that strings and their effects are completely unobservable and unverifiable. This dismisses the use of the scientific method. As Richard Feynman noted in The Character of Physical Law, “The key test of any scientific theory is whether its consequences agree with the measurements we take in experiments. Since human beings do not have the technology to observe strings or their effects much of the data must be taken on faith not science.” That’s right Feynman said faith! This admission is startling because Christians have had their ideas dismissed for decades for exactly the same reason!
Conclusion
All current understanding and acceptance of the Big Bang as the event that began everything including space and time mirror the creation event as detailed in the Bible. These two facts offer conclusive proof that God created the universe. Naturalist alternate theories which jettison the scientific method and the foundations are what they appear to be, a vain struggle to eliminate the obvious.
Summary
Christians have always held that God created the universe out of nothing as stated in the Bible in the book of Genesis. Their testimony here is consistent with their beliefs which have not varied over time. Current theories by science to explain the creation of the universe are astonisingly exact representations of the Genesis account.
The consequences of the testimony of the Naturalists, on the other hand, is catastrophic. Their testimony shows that they have abandoned the foundation doctrines of the scientific method and the scientific belief system seemingly for the sole purpose of producing a predetermined conclusion. Indeed, their arguments shock anyone who assumes that scientists are unprejudiced and solely dedicated to search for the truth. Their behavior is consistent with the following dismissive quote by Astronomer Carl Sagan which was aimed not at science but at Christians.
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.” [Carl Sagan]
The conclusion drawn from their behavior indicates that the only way naturalists can destroy the Big Bang, the singularity and God is to wantonly abandon their beliefs. This behavior is all the more startling given sciences’ harsh declaration that if an explanation, theory or hypothesis does not fall within the scientific method it automatically fails and cannot be accepted. Their wholesale jettisoning of principal is equivalent to catching your opponent purposefully presenting perjured testimony.
The Anthropic Principal
Are we and the planet we inhabit something special or are we average and nondescript? Various “principles” have been put forth to offer an answer to this question. The most widely accepted by science is the Copernican Principle, which holds that no part of the universe is more privileged than any other part. The Copernican Principle, or the principle of mediocrity, states that life on Earth is nothing special or extraordinary and as a consequence, the universe is likely filled with millions of advanced sentient civilizations. Carl Sagan an unapologetic advocate of the Copernican Principle put it this way in his book “The Pale Blue Dot”
“There’s nothing unusual about the Earth. It’s an average unassuming rock spinning mindlessly around an unremarkable star in a run-of-the-mill galaxy. A lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.”
A recent advance in the area of explanations is recognition of the anthropic principle. This principal was initially examined because the physics of the known universe seemed to be to strikingly convenient. The anthropic principle (deriving it name from the Greek anthropos, meaning “man”) was first introduced by Cambridge astrophysicist Brandon Carter in a paper entitled Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology in Krakow, Poland in the fall of 1973. The anthropic principle comes in two forms. The weak and the strong. The weak form declares that the universe cannot exist without sentient beings to observe its existence for there can be no observations without observers. Physicist John Wheeler states about his version of the weak principal, the participatory anthropic principle, “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe. The universe is adapted to man.” The assumptions in the weak anthropic principle are mostly agreed upon by both Christians and naturalists and have cause little contention, the real problems arise from conclusions derived from the strong principal.
The strong anthropic principle, or as we will simply call it here the anthropic principle, takes another step. It states that human beings and the planet we inhabit are extraordinarily rare and privileged indeed, contrary to the accepted assumptions of the Copernican Principle.
The conclusions by Christians of deliberate design found in the anthropic principle have their genesis in recent knowledge that the universe is made physically possible by the settings of approximately 30 or so fundamental relationships and constants of physics. These physical constants, like the force of gravity and the strength of the strong nuclear force, describe not only how the universe works but how it will ultimately behave. What has recently been recognized about these forces and their settings is that if there were only minor changes in as few as one or two of the constants, these changes would make carbon based life and the observable universe impossible. This revelation has provided a strong indication that there was design behind the creation of the universe and the further proposition that its design was purposeful.
From these new discoveries even non Christians have concluded that the universe seems to have been finely tuned to permit human beings to exist. Taking this one step further, the universe seems to have been finely tuned to not only permit human beings to exist but to permit human beings to observe the handiwork of the creator. Physicist John Wheeler, stated in deference to this idea:
“A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” John Gribbin, the renowned evolutionary cosmologist, has voiced his belief that “our form of life depends, in delicate and subtle ways, on several apparent ‘coincidences’ in the fundamental laws of nature which make the Universe tick. Without those coincidences, we would not be here to puzzle over the problem of their existence.... he further states “The ‘Anthropic Principle’ says that our Universe seems to be tailor-made for us because people like us can only evolve in this kind of Universe”.
Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, declared:
“Thus, according to the physicist and the astronomer, it appears that the Universe was constructed within very narrow limits, in such a way that man could dwell in it. This result is called the anthropic principle. It is the most theistic result ever to come out of science, in my view.... I really do not know what to make of this result.” the Anthropic Principle (1984, pp. 21,22)
Christian Testimony
The base claim by Christians of divine purpose has been ridiculed for years by science for its faith based adherence. From the Christian perspective, recognition of the anthropic principal is confirmation by the scientific community that God created the heavens and the earth specifically for man to dwell in as declared in the book of Genesis. Other bible verses seem to speak directly to the anthropic principal as well, such as Isaiah 45:18 which declares:
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.
Then there is this verse found in Colossians 1:16.
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
But what are some of the component parts of the anthropic principal that have astonished and baffled even non-Christians into making statements such as those offered by John Gribbin and Robert Jastrow? While the component parts that are discussed in the anthropic principal vary in number from 30 to about 60 depending on whose data you are investigating we will confine our inquiry to just a handful of fundamentals being; gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and carbon resonance.
We will be using scientific notation to display some of the various strengths of the forces we are going to look at. This is because of the inconceivable strengths of the forces involved. The number 10 -39, the gravitational constant, would be displayed as a decimal with 38 zeroes behind it followed by a 1 or 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001. The number 100, the strength of the strong nuclear force, would be written as 10 2 . The range between the strengths of the weakest force, gravity, to the strongest force, the strong nuclear force, is mind numbingly large. What is fantastic about the available setting ranges is that they defy the imagination. As an illustration, gravity, the weakest of the four forces, is ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion, times weaker than the strongest, the strong nuclear force. As a consequence of this, the total number of settings available for gravity can plausibly be taken to be at least as large as the total ranges between these two forces. This availability, from a human perspective and for all practical purposes is infinite. Now imagine an old fashioned round analog radio tuner dial. This dial is what we will use to determine the force setting of these constants. Also imagine that there is just one eight of an inch between each possible setting on the dial. If all this were so, how many setting choices would you have available for each force? The number available would be in the thousands and thousands of billions!
An important point to emphasize about these forces is that you cannot just pick and choose settings for each component part at random. As Edwin A. Karlow, PhD of the Department of Physics at La Sierra University in Riverside, California points out:
“I want to say one thing: the constants of nature and the physical laws governing its operations are so tightly knit that adoption of a portion of these laws and constants commits one to the whole. We are not free to pick and choose among those that suit us or suit our objectives, and ignore or reject the rest or declare them to be invalid or unessential.”
This declaration by Karlow makes perfect sense when you think about it. It is analogous to the cuts used in constructing a fine piece of furniture. If just one or two length cuts on the lumber used in construction are off by a fraction or one or two of the angle cuts used for the joints are off, these miscalculations will affect construction of the whole piece making completion difficult or impossible.
The Gravitational Constant. Strength 10 -39
Gravity is responsible for the formation of stars. It is the reason we have our sun. It is the reason our sun is its size and its light has a balanced red, blue spectrum necessary for life. Now lets imagine what would happen if we monkeyed with the setting of gravity; what would be the effect? Presently gravity is set at the bottom of our dial, 10 -39 . We will imagine that there are only 100 settings below its present setting and billions of settings above. What if out of the billions upon billions of choices available we moved it just ten settings above its present value; a scant one and one eight inch. What would be the result? This miniscule increase would cause the force of gravity to increase in excess of a billion fold. Creatures the size of human beings or larger would be crushed on a planet the size of Earth. Star formation would also be radically different than it is now. Most stars would be much more massive than our sun. These kinds of stars have relative short lives and are not as stable as the sun. Stable long lived stars are essential. Without them life as we know it would be highly unlikely.
What if we moved the setting the other way by the same amount? If we did, the gravitational constant would be drastically weaker and stars, if they even formed at all, would likely be much smaller than the sun. Although smaller stars have the necessary life spans and are stable enough to maintain life-supporting planets, there would be two immediate problems with a weaker gravitational constant. There would be less heavier elements formed for sustaining life and for the building of rock planets upon which life could occur and flourish and the diminished luminosity and resulting change in the spectrum of the light from the stars that did form would diminish or make impossible photosynthesis which is necessary for plant life. Again, life as we know it would be highly improbable.
The Weak Nuclear Force. Strength 10 -10
The weak nuclear force is the force that is ultimately responsible for the manufacture of hydrogen; the stuff that our sun and all the stars in the universe are made of. The amount of hydrogen made available at the creation event, the Big Bang, predetermined two things; if stars would be formed at all and if formed their number. If the setting of this force had been made slightly larger than its present state when the Big Bang occurred the Big Bang's nuclear furnaces would have burned up all the available hydrogen leaving no material available for star formation. This event would have made stars like our sun and life impossible. On the other hand, if the weak force had been made slightly smaller, most of the available hydrogen for star formation would have been converted to helium leaving the universe once again void of hydrogen and as a consequence, void of life. In either scenario changing the weak nuclear force from its present value results in no life.
The Electromagnetic Constant Strength 1
This force binds electrons to protons in an atom and makes molecular formation possible. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atomic nuclei determine what molecules can be formed as the atoms bind to each other. This force also makes matter appear solid. If the electromagnetic constant were weaker, fewer electrons could be held in their orbits around the proton. A weaker force would also mean that chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry to occur. If on the other hand, the electromagnetic force were greater, then protons could not “share” their electrons with other protons in other atoms and chemical bonding would be disrupted. The result of this would be that molecules could not form. Without molecules there is no life. The end result is that any change in this constant would preclude life from forming
The Strong Nuclear Force Strength 10 2
This force acts on the quarks, neutrons and protons of the atomic nucleus. It holds these particles together. This adhesion is necessary in the formation of other stable elements. If the strong nuclear force were weaker, Hydrogen would be the only stable element possible in the universe. Others could not exist and life would be impossible. If on the other hand, the strong nuclear force were greater, then even hydrogen could not exist, and as a consequence galaxies, stars and the Earth would have never come into being. There would be no life.
Carbon Resonance
Carbon resonance is actually a principal relationship and dependent on the settings of the four nuclear forces. It manifests itself in the formation of atomic structures. Beryllium atoms are formed from two colliding helium nuclei. A third helium nuclei colliding with beryllium forms a carbon atom. A fourth helium nuclei colliding with carbon forms an oxygen atom. Resonance in these atoms nuclei enable these unlikely combinations to stick together. If the resonance level in the carbon atom is 4% lower there would be essentially no carbon and no life. If the resonance level in the oxygen atom is .5 % higher virtually all the carbon would be converted to oxygen in the cores of stars, again yielding no carbon and no life. Atheist Fred Hoyle, British astronomer and cosmologist, found this remarkable nuclear arrangement so staggering that he declared that nothing had shaken his atheism as much as its discovery. Addressing this Hoyle made this quote.
“Would you not say to yourself, 'some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly miniscule.' Of course, you would! A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." [Fred Hoyle, 1981]
Were the five components of the anthropic principal we discussed randomly set by some cosmic accident? If so, what are the odds? In calculating these odds let’s accept the premise put forth by Dr. Edwin A. Karlow that just setting a few of these components will affect the settings of the rest. We will assign this premise to only one of the four nuclear forces we have illustrated here, gravity. We will allow this to be conservative in our odds estimate and to eliminate a larger probability for effect. With this premise in place the odds of one chance correct force setting that will affect all the settings of all forces and principals is one chance out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or one chance in 10 to the 39th. This is the same number we used to calculate the possible range settings of the force strength of gravity. This is a number so large as to be beyond human comprehension. Christians contend that if you can still cling to the cosmic accident scenario after understanding this, the only tongue and cheek conclusion that one can reasonably come to is that we must live in a very 1 in the 10 to the 39th lucky universe indeed.
Conclusion
It is obvious from the empirical evidence offered here, not by Christians but by science, that the only plausible answer to the question of the cause of the universe is God not random accident and chance.
Naturalist Testimony
The response to the Christian conclusions of the anthropic principal by naturalists can be broken down into the following arguments:
1) It is by no means clear that our carbon based life-form is the only one possible given the current laws (and fundamental constants) of physics.
2) Our knowledge of physics and cosmology is far from complete. Nothing in our knowledge explicitly rules out the possibility of finding a grand unified theory that could account for these fundamental constants of the universe.
3) The multiple universes scenario. This means simply that our universe is simply one of a large number of "mini-universes" in an infinite super universe. Each of these may have different constants and/or physical laws-some may have different life forms other may be forever devoid of anything at all.
4) Physicist Victor J. Stenger has allegedly shown that perhaps the fine-tuning of constants may not be that necessary at all. In a program he called MonkeyGod, Stenger randomly put in different values for four fundamental constants; the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton. In the randomly generated 100 universes he created in a computer many were able to have stars with long enough lifetimes for the formation of heavy elements such as carbon and for life to evolve.
5) Since Copernicus, the general trend of scientific discoveries had tended to remove humankind away from both the physical and metaphorical center of the universe.
Conclusion
Our answer is quite simple, science is a process of discovery and understanding. We admit that we don’t have all the answers as yet but we are confident that just as in the past, when more discoveries are made our understanding will increase and the naturalistic answers we seek will be forthcoming.
Christian Response
How do Christians respond to these propositions? We will tackle them in order starting with the possibility of sentient life being based on something other than carbon.
First it seems abundantly clear from all the available evidence that carbon based intelligent life is likely the only game in town. Scientists have occasionally speculated that life could be based on elements other than carbon, and silicon, being the lightest element with an electronic structure analogous to carbon, has been the most likely candidate proposed. However, carbon's tendency to form the long chains and rings that are the basis for organic compounds that at some level of complexity begin to self-replicate is apparently unique. Although other elements may form complex structures none has the rich molecular variety of carbon. It is interesting to note that the stars in our universe are presently set up to naturally produce carbon, along with nitrogen and oxygen. Another peculiarity that neutralizes this rebuttal is that one of the key components of the anthropic principal is carbon resonance. This resonance is crucial for only one purpose, the manufacture and stability of carbon and oxygen. Carbon and oxygen are necessary for carbon based life not silicon life or life based on some other imagined or exotic element. These elements are also necessary for the only sentient being known, man. Are all these facts merely coincidence? Christians hardly think so.
The speculation, and we emphasize the word speculation, that a grand unified theory might possibly explain within its mathematics why the settings observed in the anthropic principal are the way they are do in no way unseat the conclusions offered by Christians for the anthropic principal. Let’s for the sake of argument agree that 1) a unified theory has been formulated and 2) that this theory does illustrates within it information as to why the settings of the anthropic principal are the way they are. If this were so is the problem solved, are Christians rebuffed? No is the answer. The questions that would remain would be just as perplexing if not more so than the questions answered. They would be; 1) Where did the information revealed from the mathematics come from? 2) Why is it there? and 3) Can information just happen? The questions that would arise after our highly dubious and speculative scenario above are in short ludicrous. The fact is information cannot originate from dead matter or math. Information only comes from intelligence. The conclusion here is that this argument by naturalists is false on its face.
The multiple universes scenario again is another feeble attempt to rid physics of the nagging question of a creator. The fact is there is no way to observe any universe other than our own. This is not a practical issue like the strength of the telescopes used so much as a fundamental theoretical issue. By definition, our universe is self-contained, no other universe can affect anything in it, so we cannot gather evidence about another universes existence. This theory of multiples also at its core jettisons the scientific method by making any evidence proposed unobservable and unverifiable. In addition this theory crosses the line of science and moves squarely into the disciplines of philosophy and metaphysics. The idea of multiple universes is after all, upon careful examination, a philosophical issue. Arguments by Christians based upon faith and philosophy have been ridiculed for centuries for this very reason. Why are science and naturalists immune from this same ridicule? From a scientific standpoint the question of multiple universes is moot. Even if you blindly accepted that multiple universes exist you are still faced with the same unanswered questions only one step removed.
Then there is the argument that perhaps the fine-tuning of the anthropic constants may not be that critical after all. This argument rests on physicist Victor J. Stenger who in a computer simulation he called Monkey God, put in random values for four of the fundamental constants; the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton. He then generated 100 computer universes, many which he claims were able to have stars with long enough lifetimes for the formation of heavy elements such as carbon and for life to evolve. As Prof. Stenger wrote: "I think it is safe to conclude that the conditions for the appearance of life are not so improbable as those authors enamored by the anthropic principle would have people think."
We think it’s safe to conclude that the conclusions of Professor Stenger based on the results of his computer simulation are essentially invalid. The creation of sentient life on its face is infinitely more complex than can possibly be programmed into computer code. Based on his simulation Stenger’s conclusive comment that …” the conditions for the appearance of life are not so improbable as those authors enamored by the anthropic principle would have people think." is comparable to playing the game SIM Life and coming to the conclusion that you will surely get the beautiful model as a mate because that was the outcome of the game! Because of the undeniable complexity involved in the aspects of the known universe and sentient life this statement is equivalent to Stenger declaring he knows the values of all the variables necessary to conclude the equation N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL. This equation was proposed by Francis Drake as a way to calculate the percentage of intelligent races in the universe. All but one of these variables is unknown and the remainder, on further consideration, are unknowable:
N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy Answer: Current observational estimates are 100 billion.
fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems? Answer: unknowable
ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life. Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: unknowable
fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves. Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve? Answer: unknowable
fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves. Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life? Answer: unknowable
fc is the fraction of fi that communicate. unknowable
Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate? Answer: unknowable
fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive? Answer: unknowable
This comparison between the Drake equation variables and Professor Stenger’s conclusion is true because there is no authoritative way to state with reliability that the results of a computer program can provide incontrovertible proof that sentient life is possible in a universe with different parameters than the one we live in. This is impossible! Also, this particular argument, as the former, rests wholly on unobservable and unverifiable assumptions and imagination and is at its core plainly mental gymnastics and a philosophic flight of fancy.
Finally there is the statement that a general trend of scientific discoveries has tended to remove humankind away from both the physical and metaphorical center of the universe. This argument can readily be dismissed by the testimony and evidence presented here. Upon careful examination the evidence actually supports the opposite conclusion. In addition, it appears that science and religion are in fact merging much to the chagrin of obstinate naturalists.
The Christian perspective has always been that God made the heavens and the Earth for man to inhabit and that man, as part of Gods plan, has a definite purpose that was designed into him by the creator. Part of this plan seems to be the ability of man to observe the handiwork of the creator. This belief has been strengthened by the discovery and pronouncement of the anthropic principal as detailed in the testimony presented here. This discovery has prompted several observations:
“From naturalistic assumptions, you would not expect the universe to be understandable by human reason. After all, within the standard naturalistic story, human reason was developed to be able to hunt prey, get around in the everyday world [and to] attract mates.” Robin Collins Philosopher of Science
“Discoverability of the universe is something we didn’t need for our existence; it’s something additional to it. It seems then that whatever the source of the universe is, that it intended that it contain observers who can discover.” Guillermo Gonzalez Astrobiologist Iowa State University.
An interesting observation by Christians is that science and religion seem to be merging not only as a result of these new discoveries but as a consequence of inquiry into two new fields of scientific investigation, quantum mechanics and string theory. What is puzzling to many Christians is the noticeable animosity of certain factions within the science community to this merger. We think the animosity is really anxiety; that in their quest for answers, scientists fear that when they finally arrive at them they will be greeted by a pastor who will ask “What took you so long?”
Summary
The naturalists responses to the arguments offered by Christians are riddled with inconsistencies. Their arguments and testimony as set out here cannot stand close examination. They are again based on assumptions that cannot be verified by the scientific method or the principal of causality. In addition, the logic of the arguments as well as the science is fatally flawed and counterintuitive.
Darwin Macro-evolution
Charles Darwin ignited a revolution in scientific thought with the 1859 publication of his book “The Origin of Species”. This revolution was the deathblow to teleology and resulted in a radical shift in the direction of the quest for answers concerning man and his place in the universe. In “Species”, Darwin attempted to render invalid the biblical idea of mans divine origin and that "every living thing produces life after its own kind." In the first half of his book Darwin cited evidence for small discrete changes within a species. He then described these changes as micro-evolution. Micro-evolution was asserted as a consequence of his trip to and the discovery of several radically different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands. All the finches he studied there had similar characteristics and were found to have been derived from a common ancestor. The 14 observed types of finches varied according to plumage, size (from the size of a sparrow to that of a large blackbird), beak morphology, behavior and environmental habitat and these observations comprised his evidence. He then extrapolated that evidence and suggested that the same mechanisms produced all life on Earth. From this projection, Darwin postulated his theory that all species originated from a common ancestor in the distant mists of the geologic past. His theory was coined macro-evolution. It is interesting to note though, that Darwin never asked or answered the question of how the primordial common ancestor originated. His arguments during this Victorian age of reason, were, nevertheless, very seductive and as “Species” filtered into scientific circles and the popular culture it was eagerly accepted. Part of the seduction was that macro-evolution appeared scientific, enlightened and logical. However, the question we want to ask is, is the concept of macro-evolution supported by modern scientific evidence?
Naturalists Testimony
Naturalists declare that one of the most startling discoveries of the past two centuries has been that all living organisms, all the millions of species of microbes, plants and animals alive on Earth today, share a common ancestry. However different an elephant, a dung beetle, an oak tree, and an AIDS virus may look, they can all be tracked back to a common ancestor. This insight was first articulated by Charles Darwin in 1859, and new lines of evidence have confirmed his discovery time and time again. There are two key lines of evidence:
missing links
shared characteristics
Shared Characteristics found in DNA
Proteins in the bodies of all organisms, and indeed DNA and RNA, the fundamental molecules of life, carry records of evolutionary transitions. Simply put, the degree of difference between the same proteins (or the DNA or RNA) in different species is proportional to the time since they split apart. As a consequence, humans have molecules that are nearly identical to those of chimpanzees, rather more different from those of cows, and very different from those of slime molds. The amount of difference between species is proportional to the time of divergence on the evolutionary tree.
Missing Links
The role of missing links is most difficult to understand. Surely, argue the creationists and other religious fundamentalists, if evolutionists claim that all of life is related through a single huge family tree extending from the present day back millions of years to a single point of origin, we should find fossils that are midway between established groups. Our reply is, we have found the fossils!
The first dramatic missing link came to light in 1861, only a couple of years after Darwin's Origin of Species had been published. The first specimen of Archaeopteryx was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany, and it was studied avidly by scientists throughout Europe. Early writers, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, immediately noticed that Archaeopteryx was an intermediate form.
It had bird characters, feathers and wings.
It also had reptilian characters, the skeleton of a small theropod (flesh-eating) dinosaur, with a long bony tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws. The role of Archaeopteryx has been debated ever since 1861. Is it really a missing link between reptiles and birds, or is it just a bird and not a missing link at all?
New specimens seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds. Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs becoming ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird
Human Ancestors: “Lucy”
Dr. Donald C. Johanson’s dramatic discovery, in 1974, of Lucy our oldest, most complete human ancestor sparked a controversial change in our view of human origins. The following year, again at the famous site of Hadar, Ethiopia, Johanson's team made the unprecedented discover y of the fossilized remains of some 13 individuals. Believed to be the oldest evidence of human ancestors living in groups, the National Geographic Society dubbed the fossils the First Family.
Dr. Johanson's official announcement of Lucy and the First Family in 1978, as the oldest and most primitive species in our ancestry, was an event that captured headlines, catapulted a young, relatively unknown American paleoanthropologist into international acclaim, and created a spirited, ongoing controversy among experts world wide. has become a household name and an ancestral ambassador to our intriguing and enigmatic beginnings.
Australopithecus afarensis was deemed a species and subsequently dated to between 4 million and 2.7 million years old. Afarensis remains have been consistently found along East Africa's Northern Rift Valley. In all, fragments of more than 300 individuals of Australopithecus afarensis have been discovered.
Australopithecus Ramidus
What is claimed to be one of the most sensational fossil discoveries involving human origins ever made is credited to Tim D. White (University of California, Berkeley), Gem Suwa (University of Tokyo), and Berhane Asfaw (Ethiopian Ministry of Culture). Known first as Australopithecus ramidus and later changed to Ardipithecus ramidus, these fossils were found in sedimentary Pliocene deposits at Aramis, Middle Awash, northern Ethiopia between December 1992 and December 1993. The fossil discovery is made up of associated and isolated adult teeth, a child's mandible fragment, two partial cranial bases, and seven fragments from a left arm. These 17 fragments were found in association with other primate and vertebrate fossils, Radioisotopic dating, geo-chemical analysis, and bio-chronological considerations are said to suggest a date of 4.4 million years ago.
Homo Erectus
Homo erectus lived approximately 2 million years ago. Homo erectus is a large robust species with some adult brains ranging from 900 to 1200 cc. This size range means that the larger brained individuals of this species exhibit a fifty-percent increase in brain size over the older Homo habilis. The largest brain sizes of erectus fall within the range of modern humans.
A nearly complete skull was found in Africa. A nearly full skeleton was recovered of a teen-age boy, 12 or 13, who lived 1.65 million years ago near what is now Lake Turkana in east Africa. He was five feet, four inches tall, and his body is remarkably modern looking. This is the most complete find of an ancient human ancestor yet discovered, and it has provided a wealth of information. Our ancestors were both powerful and graceful, and perfectly adapted to bi-pedal locomotion.
Conclusion
With all the evidence available it is our contention that no educated person questions the validity of the so called theory of evolution, which we know to be a simple fact. The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity.
Christian Testimony
First it must be stated that the claim that all or most reputable scientists support Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution is a fabricated statement. Scientists who reject or are skeptical of macro-evolution may be one of the fastest growing minorities in the field of science. These scientists are not the narrow minded fundamentalists, or rabid religious fanatics one might assume but quite the contrary. They number in the hundreds and include respected names like Nobel nominee, chemist Henry F. Schaefer, James Tour of Rice University’s Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, leading evolutionary biologist Dr. Dean Kenyon PhD., cellular biologist Michael Behe, PhD. and Fred Figworth professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School. With this stated let’s address the evidence offered by the naturalists.
Key Lines of Evidence for Evolution: Shared Characteristics Found in DNA
The genetic similarities and dissimilarities between human beings and chimpanzees are explained by shared DNA characteristics; a key component and the foundation of macro-evolution. These differences are stated in this fashion.
“The amount of difference (between chimpanzees and human beings) is proportional to the time of divergence on the evolutionary tree”.
Human beings and chimpanzees share about a 98% genetic similarity. Despite this compelling uniformity, they are fundamentaly different. Why is that? What has recently been uncovered is that the locations of DNA swapping between chromosomes, known as recombination hotspots, are entirely different in humans and chimps! This was a sobering discovery because one of the central tenets of modern biology is that specific DNA sequences determine biological function. These sequences in humans and chipanzees were assumed to be identical because of presumed shared characteristics passed on through the DNA. However, when researchers compared chimps and humans for the new study, they were startled to find that despite being so genetically homogenous, humans and chimps have totally different DNA recombination hotspots! What was not stated in the study, but is nevertheless true, is that these findings show that the previous assumptions about mans shared evolutionary characteristics are false. Why? Because these recombination hotspots, or anchors, are not and cannot be passed between species. Professor Peter Donnelly at Oxford had this to say about this revelelation: ‘If chimps and humans do not share these recombination hotspots, then it means something other than the surrounding DNA code must be controlling the process of recombination” What this discovery also declares and affirms is the presence of genetic information that is not passed between species. If this is observed in other species as well as man, it will completely obliterate the assertion by Charles Darwin that all life evolved from a common ancestor.
The above information and conclusions are further strengthened by the written confession of a molecular biologist. His confession speaks volumes. To protect his identity and his career from repercussions, he was identified only as "J". The interview was conducted on February 17, 2000 by George Caylor of the Lynchburg, Virginia “Ledger”.
“To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.”
The operation of DNA is extraordinarily elaborate. In a process known as transcription, a molecular machine first unwinds a section of the DNA helix to expose the genetic instructions (digital code) needed to assemble a specific protein molecule. Another machine then copies these instructions to form a molecule known as messenger RNA. When transcription is complete, the RNA strand carries the genetic information out of the cell nucleus. The messenger RNA strand is directed to a two-part molecular factory called a ribosome. Inside the ribosome, a molecular assembly line builds a specifically sequenced chain of amino acids. These amino acids are then transported from other parts of the cell and linked into chains often hundreds of units long. Their specific sequential arrangement determines the type of protein manufactured. When the chain is finished, it is moved from the ribosome to a barrel-shaped molecular machine that helps fold it into the precise shape critical to its function. After the chain is folded into a protein, it is then released and shepherded by another molecular machine to the exact location in the body where it is needed.
This "absolutely mind-boggling" procedure caused lead biology professor at San Francisco State University, Dr. Dean Kenyon to repudiate conclusions on the chemical origin of life in his book “Biochemical Predestination” and to instead profess that nothing short of an intelligence could have created the intricate cellular apparatus seen in DNA. "This new realm of molecular genetics [is] where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth." DNA is an absolutely astonishing mechanism of incomprehensible complexity. A single microscopic strand of DNA contains more information than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, about three billion bits. The number of possible combinations that can be obtained from the four bases and the three billion bits of information contained in the DNA are a staggering 8.1 X 10 37 possible different combinations or 81,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00.
It’s a big number.
Because of this DNA has been described as the most efficient information storage and processing system in the known universe. If the full text of the Encyclopedia Britannica were to arrive on Earth in the form of computer code, most people would regard this as absolute proof of the certain existence of extraterrestrial life. But when this same phenomenon is seen in nature it is brushed aside and explained away as the simple product of blind chance and random selection. DNA is not the product of blind chance and random selection. Deoxyrybonucleic Acid is in fact a molecular engine of irreducible complexity that uses information in the form of digital code to manufacture and replicate the amino acids necessary to form proteins, the building blocks of life. Because DNA is irreducibly complex and the information contained within the DNA is digital it cannot be the product of an evolutionary process of dead matter.
Unbridled statements by naturalists assume, without critical analysis, that DNA and the molecular machines necessary for its operation along with the digital information required to power DNA are the product of blind chance, natural selection and successive modifications. This assumption is absurd. There is no natural mechanism or process known that can explain the darwinian-evolution of an irreducibly complex machine and digital code. This would be a proposition as absurd as proposing that an Intel Pentium 486 computer chip and the Microsoft Windows XP operating system evolved from a pile of quartz as a consequence of natural selection and chance.
Think of it this way, Darwinists and naturalists believe that only matter exists; we will for the sake of illustration accept this premise. If matter is all that exists what is the mass difference (weight difference) between an empty computer hard drive and a computer hard drive loaded with the Windows XP operating system, Microsoft Word. Microsoft Excel, Access, multiple games and hundreds of other software programs? Does the information add a one gram difference, one thousandth of a gram, one hundred thousandth of a gram, one millionth of a gram? The answer of course is it adds nothing; there is no difference in mass. Since this is true, it is also true that with information, we are dealing with a substance of a fundamentally different nature than matter because information is mass-less. Because this is true, a mass-less material like information cannot possible be a product of or arise from matter! All of this is true of the information contained within the DNA molecule. But it leaves several nagging unanswered questions for naturalists, where did the information come from and how did it get there?
Charles Darwin himself had this to say about complexity and his theory which speaks directly to the intricacies recently discovered in DNA.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".
British geneticist and biologist J.B.S. Haldane, a devoted Darwinist, claimed in 1949 that evolution could and would never produce various mechanisms such as the wheel and magnet. (irreducibly complex machines) Therefore any such machines or like mechanisms found in organisms would, in his opinion, prove evolution false.
The DNA molecule fits Darwin’s testimony and Haldane’s statement perfectly. The existence of DNA is by and of itself the insurmountable evidence that eliminates the macro-evolution theory. Natural selection and evolution are assumed as the explanation for the origin of DNA and the digital information found within it. For natural selection and evolution to even be considered as the answer to life’s diversity however, there must have been a common self replicating original biologic ancestor. Since, it has been found that the molecular machine DNA is solely responsible for cellular replication it follows that without DNA there is no natural selection and without natural selection there is no evolution. As a result, Darwinists can’t use natural selection and evolution to explain the origin of DNA since this proposal would initially have to assume the existence of the very thing they are trying to explain! This blind alley of circular reasoning is confirmation by itself of Darwin and Haldane’s statements and proof that macro-evolution is false! This doesn’t even ask the question where did the digital code in DNA come from!
These new genetic findings also corroborate the core belief of Christians that Darwin’s claim of cross species evolution is false as the book of Genesis clearly states:
Genesis 1:23 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:24 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
If a princess kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we tend to call this a fairy tale. If it is assumed that the frog took a million years or more to turn into a prince, we tend to call this evidence of evolution. The lack of fossil evidence and these new genetic discoveries have shown that the naturalists explanation of man, in terms of his evolutionary shared characteristics with pond scum, are just what they appear to be, an empty fairy tale.
Missing Links: Archaeopteryx
If dinosaurs evolved into birds, thousands of types of animals should have been more bird-like than dinosaurs and yet more dinosaur-like than birds. Evolutionists claim that Archaeopteryx is such an animal, a feathered dinosaur, a transition between dinosaurs and birds. Of the relatively few claimed intermediate fossils, Archaeopteryx is the one most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in most biology textbooks as proof of transition. Some say the six discovered Archaeopteryx fossils are the most famous fossils in the world. But the story behind this alleged half-dinosaur, half-bird is much more interesting than its scientific-sounding name.
Since the early 1980s, several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers were forgeries. They allege that upon examination there was evidence of thin layers of cement being spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement to produce Archaeopteryx. An interesting feature of the fossil seems to support this conclusion. The skeletal features visible on Archaeopteryx are not suitable for flight because no specimen displays a sternum which all birds, must have to anchor their flight muscles. If there is no annchor why would the process of evolution develop feathers?
In addition, two fossil feathered examples of Archaeopteryx were conveniently found and sold for premium prices by Karl Häberlein (in 1861 for 700 pounds) and his son, Ernst (in 1877 for 20,000 gold marks), just as Darwin’s, The Origin of Species and his theory were gaining popularity. While some German experts at the time thought the 1861 fossil was a forgery, the British Museum of Natural History bought it sight unseen. It is also interesting to note that in the preceding century, fossil forgeries from limestone quarries were quite common in that region of Germany.
Grounds for the forgery of Archaeopteryx also included evidence that the mating faces of the fossil (the main slab and counterslab) did not mate. The feather impressions are primarily on the main slab, while the counterslab in several places has raised areas with no corresponding indentation on the main slab. These raised areas, nicknamed “chewing gum blobs,” are made of the same fine-grained material that is found only under the feather impressions. The rest of the fossil is composed of a coarse-grained limestone. From this, the conclusion was drawn that the skeletal material of Archaeopteryx is authentic but that the feathers were artificially imprinted on the fossil.
Human Ancestors
Most so called transitional fossil finds claiming to be human ancestors, pre-men or missing links are in fact not complete but instead bits and pieces sometimes cobbled together to give the appearance of unity. Complete fossils are easy to assign clearly as either ape or human. Lacking completeness there are only ape-men and imagination colored with the belief that evolution can be applied to the fragmented bits and pieces. With this enthusiasm the bits are then declared human.
Australopithecus or "Lucy", a shining star to the stage show of evidence of pre humans, has been discarded by many evolutionists. Even famed anthropologist Louis Leakey never believed it had anything to do with the evolution of man. He considered it simply an extinct ape. It stood three feet tall, had arms that hung down to the ankles and had a brain one third the size of humans. Adrienne Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, said, "Zihlman compares the pigmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy', one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size...indicates that pygmy chimps use their limbs much the same way Lucy did..." Science News, Vol. 123, Feb. 5, 1983, p89
Ardipithecus ramidus is proudly displayed by naturalists as our closest ancestor to the apes. When the evidence is examined however, it is found to be seriously flawed. When ramidus was claimed as the proverbial missing link what was not recognized or considered was that the incomplete bits and pieces of ramidus were actually found scattered over about a mile and then put together. This scattered reconstruction alone calls into question the conclusions of ramidus offered to the public and science.
Homo habilis another excited introduction claimed to be the first ever human is now widely recognized as a mixture of different types, technically called an 'invalid taxon'.
Homo erectus – This is one of the few fossils that include almost complete skeletal remains. Many erectus fossils have been found around the world. Their presentation as “our ancestors”, however, is simply unjustified upon close examination. Erectus is smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). The “Turkana Boy” specimen, has a typical erectus skull, differing from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. Its braincase is more similar to other erectus specimens such as the Peking Man than it is to modern humans. The cranial capacity of erectus skulls averaged about three quarters that of modern man. The shape of the skull was additionally very different. The skull was so different that no one would mistake it as that of a modern human. The skull bones were much thicker, had huge brow ridges, the face was much more massive, and the dome of the skull was much smaller. One has only to examine a series of photos of skulls to see this. What many have found remarkable and telling is that over a long span of time, judged between a million to as long as 1.2 million years by accepted scientific dating methods, Homo erectus shows virtually no evolutionary change. This lack of change is conspicuously inconsistent with Darwin’s theory.
A major scandal in evolutionary genetics is the complete suppression of Haldane's Dilemma, a problem discovered in the 1950s by the famous evolutionary geneticist, J.B.S. Haldane. Evolutionists could never solve it so they decided instead to hide and suppress it. As a result, Haldane's Dilemma is invisible in evolutionary genetics textbooks today. You will be counted as lucky to find any information on the problem. The little available information available on it is cryptic and opaque, even to serious students.
Haldane explained the problem this way. Along the relevant primate line, our supposed pre-human ancestors had an effective generation time of approximately 20 years. Now, imagine it’s 10 million years ago; that's enough time for 500,000 generations of our presumed ancestors to emerge. Now imagine a population of 100,000 of those organisms quietly evolving their way toward humanity. For easy visualization and maximum evolutionary impact, picture a scenario that favors extremely rapid evolution. Every generation, (20 years) one male and one female receive a beneficial mutation so advantageous that the 999,998 other organisms magically die. The population is then replenished in one generation by the surviving couple. All this happens in the compressed space of 20 years. Now imagine that this happens generation after generation, for ten million years. With this incredible scenario, how many beneficial mutations to this species could be incorporated into the organism? One per generation or 500,000 nucleotides. The total incorporation would amount to fourteen one thousandth (0.014) of the human genome. This number of beneficial mutations based on this impossible example is an incredibly small fraction of the 2 to perhaps 3 percent genetic difference that separates Humans from chimpanzees.
Haldane's Dilemma immediately reveals a severe problem with Darwinian macro-evolution. It also raises impossible questions with answers no one will utter. Is 500,000 beneficial nucleotides enough to explain the origin of humanity from some chimp-like ancestor? The answer is a resounding no. The problems posed by Haldane get even worse when considering the aforementioned staged evolutionary scenario; 1) a population would never die out as in our example and 2) there is no possible way for a female primate to produce 100,000 offspring each generation. These realities make the problem even more ludicrous! Based on viable reproduction rates the evolution of Human Beings from a lower life form based on macro evolution is simply not possible. Macro-evolution requires the substitution of old prevalent traits with new rare traits and with the aforementioned parameters Human evolution is just not possible. In other words if an evolutionary scenario requires an implausibly high level of reproductive capacity to successfully introduce traits, then the scenario is not plausible.
Haldane saw this problem and posed it within the framework of mathematical population genetics. He calculated that higher vertebrates (such as mammals) have only enough reproductive capacity to sustain an average rate of 300 generations per substitution. In this light, Haldane's Dilemma becomes glaringly plain. Taking the population we discussed, in ten million years, it could only substitute 1,667 beneficial nucleotides. That is less than 50 millionths of one percent of the genome. Is that enough to explain the origin of upright posture, speech, language, theoretical thinking, just to name a few of our uniquely human capacities? Is it enough to make a sapien out of a simian? The answer is as obvious as is the answer as to why Darwinists have suppressed J.B.S. Haldane’s brilliant deductive reasoning. Haldane’s Dilemma is also the reason that mathematicians bluntly state that evolution cannot be supported by any mathematical proof.
When viewing the fossil record presented as evidence that macro-evolution can and does explain animal diversity one thing becomes evident, assertions by evolutionists that Darwin’s theory is fact stand in stark contrast to the glaring lack of evidence in the fossil record. This was what Darwin feared most when he stated:
"....innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ....why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Charles Darwin “Origin Of The Species”.
This sentiment has been echoed by others.
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanisms in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." David M. Raup, University of Chicago; Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, Vol.50, p.35
And then there is this emotional prophetic appeal by Sir Fred Hoyle, long a proponent of the atheist viewpoint, while on a lecture tour of Australia in 1982.
'Rejection of Darwinian evolutionary beliefs are crucial to the survival of life on earth'.... and 'Once you believe in the evolutionary theory that the weakest go to the wall and that nothing can be done about the selection process, then it's an open invitation to the kind of political behaviour we've had over the last century. One has almost built world wars into the system at that point.' (EA).
Conclusion
Darwin’s observations of the process of micro-evolution are undisputed even among Christians. The problem arises with his extrapolations which conclude that these same processes can explain the emergence and diversification of all life including man from a common biological ancestor. His extrapolations are scientifically unjustified and logically flawed. Because of recent cutting edge findings, some of which we have covered here, Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution is undergoing serious reexamination and close scrutiny in public and scientific circles. One reason this has happened is that Darwin’s processes are generated, so the theory goes, by chance. Chance, in physics, is a mathematically verifiable proposition, so any logical or scientific theory that depends on it can be mathematically tested. Unfortunately, chance evolutionary theory does not have the honor of any sound mathematic support despite the fact that evolution is the sole base for the materialist philosophy.
Despite this, many scientists and much of the general public have accepted this one scenario for human origins, namely, the macro-evolutionary scenario. With it being the only scenario under serious consideration, it is not surprising that many scientists and a significant part of the public blindly accept its declarations and regard human evolution from lower forms as a fact. However, upon giving the offered evidence close scrutiny and in viewing recent developments in cosmology, astronomy and physics, we are led to consider an additional choice, the Biblical scenario. If the Biblical scenario is truly without merit, it would not be supported by current scientific data and can be summarily discarded. However, if it is consistent with scientific evidence, which we have shown it is, then it deserves to be considered as a legitimate alternative to strict evolution regardless of the implications this has to non-Christian worldviews and philosophies.
Summary
It is obvious when all the testimony is scrutinized that there are fatal flaws in Darwin’s macro-evolution theory. In light of new discoveries concerning the intricacies of DNA, the digital information that powers it and the problems associated with the claim of mans shared genetic characteristics, macro-evolution is all but dismissed. In combination with the lack of conclusive fossil evidence the naturalists assertion that “macro-evolution is a simple fact” seems hollow, dishonest and anything but true.
Dualism or Do I Really Have A Soul?
What is Consciousness? Do we have a soul? Is Francis Crick, the co discoverer of DNA, right when he declared that we are “no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” The answer to this question has profound implications. Philosopher John Searle declared that why we are conscious is, "the single most important fact about our existence, except for life itself." Can it be that our consciousness or soul is the direct result of the complexity of our neurosystems and brains as naturalists contend? Are our thoughts, feelings and emotions simply functions of our body? Naturalists argue this is so and that consciousness is the straightforward by product of evolution and random forces.
Dr. Searle has concluded:
“In my worldview, consciousness is caused by brain processes.”
In other words, naturalists with Dr. Searle’s “worldview” believe consciousness is purely a product of biology. As brain scientist Barry Beyerstein said,
“…just as the kidneys produce urine, the brain produces consciousness.”
Naturalists contend that the material world is all that exists and we are no more than accidental “computers made of meat” who have acquired sentience as a consequence, of the meat. While many naturalists have sought to stake this claim as fact, scientists who are committed to finding a purely physical answer are candid in admitting that currently they have absolutely no explanation for how the brain might spawn consciousness. Even John Searle conceded this.
"We don't have an adequate theory of how the brain causes conscious states, and we don't have an adequate theory of how consciousness fits into the universe."
Still, Dr. Searle and others find refuge in their unshakable faith that science will eventually discover a completely naturalistic explanation. Professor of neurology Antonio R. Damasio stated this unbridled optimism eloquently when he declared:
"I am firmly in the confident camp that a substantial explanation for the mind's emergence from the brain will be produced and perhaps soon."
Given Darwinism as a non-negotiable starting point, naturalists really have no other choice do they?
Christians, on the other hand, vehemently deny these conclusions. The material world is not all there is and man is in fact composed of entirely distinct entities, body and soul. There is a spiritual world that interacts with the material world and it is this spiritual world that is the true reality. These facts they say are confirmed in the Bible. They also point out that naturalists face a tough battle proving their claims in light of recent information published in the medical journal “Resuscitation” and presented to scientists at the California Institute of Technology in 2001. This year-long British study provided evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning and he or she has been declared clinically dead! The study provides dramatic new evidence that the brain and mind are not the same, but are in fact separate and distinct entities. Christians also argue that proving the existence of the soul or self by the scientific method and the discovery of empirical data is impossible and will never occur. They also contend that despite this there are simple thought experiments, or as Albert Einstein called them “Gedankenexperiment” that anyone can do to confirm your souls existence. We will see.
Naturalist Testimony
What we need to emphasize here is that while propositions on the evolution of consciousness have no direct evidence they are nevertheless indirectly supported by overwhelming fossil evidence that confirm Darwin’s theory of evolution which is the basis for theories of consciousness. As a consequence, most scientists now embrace monistic philosophic conclusions that matter, the stuff of mind, is the same as the stuff of the brain. Many, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence, take the view that consciousness is just an inevitable product of complex computation. Evolutionary biologist T. H. Huxley stated it this way.
“…like the steam whistle, which accompanies the work of a locomotive without influence upon its machinery.”
Monism, the naturalists vehicle to reveal Darwin’s theories, is the philosophic proposition that reality is entirely composed of one substance, matter. It also proposes that the mental can ultimately be reduced to the physical and states that all critical aspects of the mind are reducible. As a consequence, something need not be made out of neurons to have mental states. This is a popular position in cognitive science and artificial intelligence; that computers will at some point think and achieve sentience.
French geologist/paleontologist, Pere Pierre Teilhard de Chardin developed what was known as the Law of Complexification or Consciousness. In this panpsychism theory he stated that an increase in mans consciousness was a consequence of the evolution of mans biological complexity. In an attempt to meld his Jesuit religious training with Darwin macro-evolution his theory proposed that even atoms have a kind of primitive, pre-biological consciousness. This concept led to speculations about a kind of soul, present in each existing organism from the simplest one celled to the most complex. Answers to the question of consciousness become more plausible under this scenario, if one considers consciousness as only the latest form in the evolution of an internal organizing system. This system has taken several concrete forms during the evolution of the universe, from a primitive conditions at the subatomic level to full human consciousness.
According to another theory of the mind known as “identity theory”, mental states of the brain are identical with physicochemical states. The brain is simply regarded as a super-complex computer in which material processes in the cerebral cortex somehow generate thoughts and feelings. A supporter of this materialistic theory, Daniel C. Dennett, says that our brains contain :
“…a cobbled-together collection of specialist brain circuits, which . . . conspire together to produce a . . . more or less well-designed virtual machine . . . By yoking these independently evolved specialist organs together in common cause, and thereby giving their union vastly enhanced powers, this virtual machine, this software of the brain, performs a sort of internal political miracle: It creates a virtual captain of the crew …” Consciousness Explained ,1991, p. 2 28
Dennett’s virtual captain is what we normally regard as our self, but according to Dennett it is really just an illusion produced by the global action of our brain circuits!
Gerald Edelman's theories are rooted in neurology. In fact, he insists that this is the only foundation for a successful theory of consciousness; the answers are not to be found in quantum physics, philosophical speculation, or computer programming. He speculates that the neurons in the brain wire themselves up in complex and idiosyncratic patterns during growth. The neurons come together to compose a number of structures. They form groups which tend to fire together, and for Edelman these groups are the basic operating unit of the brain. The other main structures he characterizes as maps. The whole system is bound together by re-entrant connections, sets of paths which provide parallel connections from group A to Group B and Group B back to Group A. The principle which makes this structure work is Neuronal Group Selection, or Neural Darwinism. Some patterns are reinforced by experience, while many others are eliminated in a selective process which resembles evolution.
Conclusion
The theory of the evolution of consciousness or self is valid and will ultimately be found to be how mans consciousness came into being. Why? Because consciousness theories are based on Darwin evolution and Darwin evolution is a fact based on conclusive fossil and genetic evidence.
Christian Testimony
First of all we need to consider one of the fundamentals of the theories proposed by naturalists. This fundamental is the premise that only matter exists. As a consequence there is no room in these theories for non physical components. However, as we have conclusively shown in earlier testimony, there is another substance that is not reducible to matter or energy. This is of course information, which is a qualitatively different non physical substance. This same quality is also true of consciousness or your soul. Your soul is, like information, a non material, ethereal component of life.
If the naturalists’ conjectures were true and we sprang from the primordial soup, evolved and developed big brains which then inexplicitly spawned consciousness, what would be some of the problems with this concept? Can these problems be illustrated? There would actually be several. The first big problem is that these matter based theories introduce, as a conclusion to their position, a non material component, consciousness. If naturalists are correct and only matter exists, then it follows that consciousness, the soul, the ego or the “I” can’t exist! Non material states like these are specifically excluded from their theories. Even in the panpsychism theory of Chardin, Chardin excludes an explanation of the origination of the non material “soul” he claims is existent in his universe of proto conscious matter. All the theories additionally have as part of their makeup the unexplained component of information with no explanation as to its origin.
Consciousness or conscious states of man are uniquely described from a first person point of view. We claim that this first person point of view is confirmation of the essence of the “you” or your soul. What is a fascinating thought experiment, is that you can contemplate the essence of you, your soul and the physical you or body from a third and first person perspective concurrently! Try it! If man were just matter this would not be possible. Human beings, if just the product of the evolution of dead matter, would only be capable of capturing their experiences in a third person physical sense. We would just be complicated computers preprogrammed by the cosmos. All of our perceptions would be described entirely from this detached point of view. It would be similar to capturing data on a graph; there would be no subjectivity, no contemplation, no emotions, no feelings, no love or hate. This however is not the case! We know it doesn’t happen. We all have first person, subjective points of view of our existence. Since this kind of view can only emanate from a non physical, non material source, the soul or consciousness, naturalist theories are not true. Another glaring dilemma is the fact that when naturalists like Daniel Dennet, Barry Beyerstein, John Searle and T.H. Huxley write or contemplate their physicalist propositions, the very act of their first person, subjective analysis of the subject matter is a confirmation of their non material soul and a manifest denial of the very theories they propose which deny its existence!
As further affirmation of our position, the Bible is replete with declarations of the duality of man and states unequivocally that man is composed of both a physical body and a nonphysical, nonmaterial element called spirit or soul. Here are just a few examples.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Psalms 142:4 I looked on [my] right hand, and beheld, but [there was] no
man that would know me: refuge failed me; no man cared for my soul.
Job 12:10 In whose hand [is] the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
If the naturalists are correct and only matter exists, what is the mass difference between a living human being and a human being that has passed away? Our guess is there is no difference. Like our illustration on the true nature of information, your spirit is also non-physical and ethereal. It is the mass-less component of “you” that animates your body. As it states in the book of James:
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Another illuminating thought experiment you can engage in to illustrate these verses and your duality is to imagine that the body acts as a television set and the soul has the separate characteristics of a television signal. As long as both are working in harmony there is a picture on the set. Physically translated, as long as the person’s soul inhabits the body the person you know and love is present on this Earth. This fact is stated in Genesis 2:7. Conversely, if the set breaks (the body dies) the signal (or soul of the person) is unable to manifest itself in the television set (body). The person you know or love then is not able to inhabit the Earth. This is stated in James 2:26.
But is this true? Is the essence of the people we know and love really a non physical component of their body? Absolutely! Think of it in this manner. Take a loved one; someone you know intimately. Where is the matter, the stuff, the physical component of their body that houses that person or their soul? You could dissect their body all you wished and look into every organ and cell for as long as you wished with whatever instrument you wished but you would never be able to find it. Why? Because the essence or soul of that person is a component that does not manifest itself in the physical world; it is immaterial, ethereal, non physical. The soul is the unembodied essence that animates our physical presence on Earth as stated in James 2:26.
Are there other problems with these theories that we can demonstrate? Absolutely! Another consequence if the naturalist theories are correct is the death of free will.
Do you have free-will? Are you able to and can you make choices that are not programmed into you by the dead matter you allegedly evolved from? If you did arise by blind chance as naturalists conclude then you would just be a very complicated computer that behaved according to the laws or programming of nature. You would have no choices of action available to you other than those that were programmed into you. Free-will, on the other hand, gives you the ability to choose one of several possible alternatives, to make decisions, the outcome of which are and cannot be known in advance. It is fundamentally the doctrine that human choices are not predetermined, and it gives you the ability to choose and act according to the dictates of your soul.
How does free-will differ from normal operations we might mischaracterize as choice, the kind that machines and animals make? The difference in human choice over that of machines and animals lies in our ability to think abstractly, and in our self awareness. These unique characteristics create and control the freedom of choice that free-will represents. We understand. Machines and animals have knowledge, but they have little or no understanding or conceptual self awareness. But we do! Everyone would agree with that conclusion. We all know that deep down we are more than a physical brain acting always in our self interest. If this were not true there would never be instances of self sacrifice; where men lay down their lives in sacrifice for friends and family in total disregard of their own best interests, keeping their lives. Engaging in this very act is confirmation of the soul, the non material, non physical essence, the real “you”.
Another provoking thought experiment is that you can demonstrate to yourself that you have a soul. Take your hand and put it in front of your face palm out. Now, look at your index finger. While looking at you index finger wiggle it back and forth. Now think about how that happened. How did “you” do that? Was the action an autonomic response? Obviously it was not. What caused it was your will or soul directing your finger to move. The essence that is “you” or your soul was the instigator of this action. Remember, the real you is ethereal and non physical and is the repository of your life. Without this will, your soul, there is no movement, no animation. As the Bible states numerous times “…the body without the spirit is dead.”
Your will can not only manifest it self to you in this way but it can also be broadcast out from your body like a light and influence and be the cause of the actions of others. Will is extremely powerful. Just think about how large populations and even nations have been moved or willed into action by the words of a single man. History is replete with accounts of this.
A last insurmountable problem with naturalist theories is that man is wired to think theoretically. We have the desire and the will to consider and analyze our place in God’s universe. We have the capacity and the will to contemplate its mysteries. We also are capable and have the will to invent spherical geometry, calculus, string theory, and quantum mechanics as tools to probe and better understand these questions. Yet, these abilities have nothing whatsoever to do with our survival! Under the theory of natural selection, abilities such as these would have been quashed or would have never arisen at all. As such, there would be no reason for them to exist much less be passed on to successive generations. This fact stands in obvious denial of the naturalist proposals of consciousness founded on dead matter, natural selection and evolution.
Is there unanimous approval from the scientific community about the theories proposed by naturalists? The answer would be no. Nobel Laureate Biologist Sir John Eccles totally rejects the monistic philosophic proposition of Dennet’s “identity theory”, saying that it never goes beyond the vague generality that the problems with the theory will ultimately be resolved when science has a more complete understanding of the brain. Eccles terms this imaginative belief promissory materialism and then states that this:
"…impoverished and empty" theory fails to account for "the wonder and mystery of the human self with its spiritual values, with its creativity, and with its uniqueness for each of us."
However he is not done with his criticisms.
“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition. . . . we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.”
We echo Eccles’ criticisms. We have pointed all this out before, that information and consciousness or the soul, is composed of a qualitatively different substance than matter and as such is not subject to the scientific reductionism of the theories proposed by naturalists.
Conclusion
The testimony of the naturalists is fundamentally empty. The naturalists’ philosophies on the emergence of consciousness or soul are founded on one tenuous claim, that Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution has been established as an incontrovertible fact. This assertion and its alleged evidence is then extrapolated to include the various theories of the evolution of consciousness or soul. It is a captivating, seductive proposal for the naturalist but in the end it is void of substance. Rather than espousing a rational basis for life, Darwin and naturalist theories attempt to empty life of all meaning and purpose and then hurl us into the abyss of a random and pointless universe. This existential dessert is evident in the lives of those who have followed this philosophy to its logical end as Nietzsche, Camus and Satre did. As we have shown in our testimony on Darwin, the assertions about macro-evolution can be stated to be many things but being stated as a fact is not among them. Fossil records have been conclusively shown to be spotted and dubious, the assumptions of shared genetic characteristics, the foundation of the theory, are being seriously questioned and the alleged evolution of genetic information and DNA has been shown to be what it is, false. As a consequence Darwin’s macro-evolution and the naturalists monistic philosophies are being exposed to be what they are, empty promises built on fantasy and imagination.
Statement
Upon examination, the only possible answer to this question is that we have a soul derived from God. Deep down in all of us we know that we are more than the animated meat proposed by naturalists. We feel this without seeing it. We are convinced, without evidence, that there is a part of us that is non material but is the essence of who we are. In addition the theories offered by naturalists are mixed at best. All of them have as a constituent ingredient a non material answer which is in direct conflict with their base proposition. This conflict by itself destroys their argument.
Final Statement
As Charlie Brown once said "In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back." Science should be open to whatever answers can best explain the data. Sadly though this seems to not be the case in many instances. The common thread that runs through all the topics discussed here is that even when presented with overwhelming evidence of intelligent design by God, naturalists will resist even the consideration to their last breath. And why not one might ask? God is not a naturalistic explanation and accordingly, they say, God cannot enter the equation even as a consideration. This is despite the fact that we daily attribute unknown, unseen causes as the explanation of events in our daily lives. So be it. The consequences though of this choice of Darwin and naturalism as an answer has not been without its consequences. The theory of Darwin’s evolution has wreaked more havoc upon civilization than any other doctrine that has ever been embraced by man. The facts of this echo Sir Fred Hoyle’s prophetic warnings. Darwin’s macro-evolution has replaced moral absolutes with relativism; purpose with emptiness and despair; accountability with lack of consequence; self control with self abandon and indulgence; hope with futility; personal freedom with authoritarian control; spiritual values with materialism and the elevation of spirit with the total abasement of man. Since 1859 the results of the all encompassing embracement of Darwin have been the crumbling of social values, the most vicious wars the world has ever been witness to, untold ruin and millions upon millions of corpses. The obvious lesson is that man was never meant to run on this empty, futile philosophy disguised as science.
But, how can we be sure that the God of Abraham is real? Where is the hard evidence? The fact is, hard evidence is not necessary to prove Gods existence. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you ever seen a broken heart? Have you ever seen an atom or molecule? Have you ever seen a child’s love? Have you ever seen someone’s soul? Can you hold these things in your hand? The answer is no you can’t, yet we know these things exist and are real. How? Because we have seen indirect, circumstantial and personal evidence of their existence and of our own free will we choose to believe in them. And so it should be with God.
Final Instructions To The Jury
Remember, as a jury member it is your function to determine the truth based on the testimony and evidence presented. You determine the weight, effect and value of the presented evidence, as well as the credibility of the witnesses. You must consider and weigh the testimony of all witnesses who have appeared and determine whether to believe them and to what extent they should be believed. It is your responsibility to consider, without prejudice, any conflicts in testimony which may arose during the course of this trial. Your decision as to any fact in the case is final.
Your determination of the facts in this case must be based upon the presented evidence only. Again, evidence consists only of the testimony of the witnesses. It also includes exhibits or other things introduced into evidence.
Keep an open mind. Sympathy must not influence your decision. Nor should your decision be influenced by prejudice or any other factor.
Arguments, statements and remarks are not evidence, and you should disregard anything said which is not supported by evidence or by your own general knowledge and experience.
Remember it is not necessary that the testimony presented be proven directly. exhibit. Much of the testimony in this trial is circumstantial Your job , in this case , is to decide if the testimony was proven indirectly by other facts or circumstances, from which it usually and reasonably follows according to the common experience and observation of mankind.
You have a right to consider all the testimony and evidence in the light of your own general knowledge and experience in the affairs of life, and to take into account whether any particular evidence seems reasonable and probable. However, if you have personal knowledge of any particular fact in this case such knowledge may not be used as evidence.
Take your time and if need to read over the presented testimony as many times as you wish.
To contact the author e-mail: swance@airmail.net(copy and paste this address to your e mail system).