neo-Darwinism Archives - DOES GOD EXIST? TODAY

February 16, 2023February 14, 2023

The War Between Science and Theology

Yesterday we talked about how Eratosthenes accurately computed Earth’s circumference around 240 B.C. We also said that it is a myth that people in the middle ages and even in the time of Christopher Columbus believed that the world was flat. That myth was based on a fiction story about Columbus written by Washington Irving in 1828. The myth was reinforced by a scientist and a historian who initiated a war between science and theology.

Scientist and philosopher John William Draper wrote History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science in 1874. He claimed that the Church was hostile to the advancement of science. He claimed that the early Church fathers believed that scripture said the Earth is flat. That concept of a war between science and theology was further advanced and popularized by historian Andrew Dickson White in his book The Warfare of Science (1876). Darwin had published his work On the Origin of Species in 1859, and the war was on.

Creating a war between science and faith seems to have been a goal of Draper and White and many advocates of Darwin’s theory, such as Thomas Henry Huxley. The lack of scholarship on the part of Draper and White has been demonstrated. Meanwhile, Darwin’s theory has had to be revised to what is now known as Neo-Darwinism. Darwin thought that living cells were just globs of protoplasm. He had no idea that they are more like cities with factories, machines, and transportation systems operating on complex information contained in DNA. As biological science advances, Darwinian naturalism faces more challenges.

Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers wrote in Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science (1986) that “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.” What many writers, including Draper and White, had overlooked was that the leading early scientists were believers in God. In fact, their faith motivated their desire to know God through His creation.

We can still know God through His creation today. So the idea of a war between science and theology is not accurate. Science and faith are friends. “For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world being understood through what he has made” (Romans 1:20 CSB).

April 6, 2022April 4, 2022

Beauty in Nature

For the past two days, we have talked about beauty in nature and how it often seems to defy the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest. Darwinists refer to “emergent order” as the process of living things coming into being without any design or intelligent guidance. Instead, they say it was accomplished by a set of simple rules laid out originally by Charles Darwin and refined into what is now known as Neo-Darwinism.

In his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Darwin presented his principle of natural selection. However, he realized that natural selection acting on random mutations couldn’t explain the “selection” method used in all cases. Moreover, he was troubled by the excess beauty in nature. He saw unnecessary frills and flourish, which he could not explain by natural selection. A year after that book was published, his frustration caused him to write, “The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it makes me sick.”

To cover those cases where natural selection can’t explain the beauty in nature, he introduced “sexual selection” in his 1871 book The Descent of Man, and Selection Related to Sex. Sexual selection involves the beauty often seen in male birds in general and peacocks in particular. According to Darwin’s sexual selection theory, the reason for the beauty of the peacock’s tail is that the peahens prefer such gaudy but impractical decorations. The same principle applies to many other species, such as bower birds or birds of paradise, where the males display striking colors or impressive actions to attract a mate.

German zoologist and eugenicist Ernst Haeckel was also an artist. He popularized Darwin through his artwork published in several books. His drawings depict the beauty he saw in even one-celled animals called Radiolaria, and he attributed the beauty to natural selection and mathematical principles. Haeckel was so enamored by Darwin’s hypothesis that he went out of his way to promote it in books of drawings.

Haeckel’s drawings sometimes showed his bias for Darwinism. For example, in The Natural History of Creation (published in German in 1868 and later in English), he displayed drawings that compared human embryos with embryos of various animals, suggesting that the development of those embryos repeats the path of evolution. However, he manipulated his illustrations to prove his point. Other scientists later pointed out the flaws, and his dishonesty discredited his scientific credentials.

However, the books of Haeckel’s drawings were best sellers in their day, and they are still selling even today. Nevertheless, those drawings did not prove design without a designer. We have called the question of how excessive beauty in nature could have evolved by natural selection “the problem of beauty.” Yesterday, we said that we prefer to call it the blessing of beauty—a blessing from God. However, atheists do not see it as a gift from the Creator, and they try to explain it away as accidental. They suggest that what appears to be designed for a purpose has no purpose and no designer. We will look at that tomorrow.

December 9, 2021December 8, 2021

Study Challenges a Basic Assumption of Neo-Darwinism

A long-term study of 27,224 mice over 26 years challenges a basic assumption of Neo-Darwinism. The assumption is that natural selection guides evolution by removing “unfit” individuals. Therefore individuals that are more fit survive to pass on their genes. The study involved white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in the wild.

Researchers identified mice with broken, missing, or deformed limbs, missing eyes, cataracts, and missing or mutilated tails. Evolution predicts that these unfit mice would be removed from a population, and the researchers set out to see how quickly that would happen. The data shows that the survival rate of the impaired mice was no different from that of mice who had no physical impairments.

For humans, this observation would be even more dramatic. That is because humans crippled for many years have lived long lives, supported by family members or group associates. That kind of support has never been observed in mice. Moreover, human history is full of terrible acts by racists and political leaders, such as Hitler, who viewed minor physical characteristics as justification for persecution and even execution of other humans.

The evidence is that physical impairments in the animal kingdom do not necessarily cause the demise of an individual. This challenges a basic assumption of Neo-Darwinism which, like uniformitarianism, is not supported by the evidence.

Reference: National Science Foundation Research News November 30, 2021.

March 18, 2021March 17, 2021

Changes in Earth’s Magnetic Field

People who promote the theory of evolution generally ignore historical events that would be Inconsistent with neo-Darwinism. Darwinism depends on an acceptance of uniformitarianism, the belief that no process has ever operated in the past that is not going on today. Previously, we have talked about past asteroid collisions with the Earth, which is an example of a process that isn’t shaping our planet and life on Earth today. Researchers in New Zealand have released a new study of changes in Earth’s magnetic field. That process, which radically altered the Earth some 42,000 years ago, is not a factor in understanding modern geologic processes.

In a magnetic reversal, changes in Earth’s magnetic field cause the north and south magnetic poles to switch. Researchers at the University of New South Wales have shown that this transition took nearly 800 years to complete, and during that time, the planet would have had no magnetic field.

The lack of a magnetic field would have been a major catastrophe which is not going on today. Our magnetic field acts as a shield against high-energy charged particles coming primarily from the Sun. Without that shield, there would have been severe environmental threats to life on Earth. Their study suggests that tropical rain belts shifted, glaciers stretched across North America, and a severe drought hit Australia. The effects of the increased radiation on living things would have a strong genetic impact.

The researchers suggest that humans living during Earth’s magnetic field changes would have to retreat to caves for shelter from the radiation and the harsh weather conditions caused by the magnetic reversal. Chris Turney, one of the authors of the study, said that any humans living at that time would have seen what was happening as “the end of days.”

The notion that Earth has been a quiet incubator for life over a very long time is inconsistent with the evidence. Losing our magnetic field would be the start of a domino effect of changes, all of which would harm life. Our magnetic field is slowly decreasing now, but this data, and other studies like it, suggest that magnetic reversals are prolonged events lasting 800 years.

The Bible makes it clear that catastrophic events are rare in Earth’s human history. Noah’s flood, the death and resurrection of Christ, and His second coming seem to be the most apparent biblical events that are catastrophic. Our planet’s stability is a part of God’s design, and without it, we would not be here. But history is punctuated with events on the Earth that are not uniformitarian such as changes in Earth’s magnetic field. Those changes have altered our planet to make it hospitable for human life. They also make it impossible to have a faith that says chance and time can account for all life we see on planet Earth.

Reference: The Week, March 12,202,1 page 21.

August 25, 2020August 24, 2020

Teaching Human Evolution

Researchers at Penn State University and the National Center for Science Education report that teaching human evolution in public schools has doubled since 2007. The study shows that the percentage of public school science teachers who teach evolution as established science has grown from 51% in 2007 to 67% in 2019. Simultaneously, the percentage of science teachers who discuss intelligent design has dropped from 23% to 14%.

The problem with data like this is that terminology is not defined. There is a difference between teaching human evolution according to neo-Darwinian theory and teaching the fact that living things can change. Nobody denies that new breeds of dogs, roses, corn, cattle, and fish have come into existence within recorded human history. There is also no doubt that racial variations of humans are happening as we watch. The Bible even describes evolutionary change as we read about what Jacob did with Laban’s flocks in Genesis 30:31-43. It is difficult to imagine a competent biology teacher not explaining how these changes come about, and how we can use them to solve the problems of hunger and disease today.

It is also easy to see how a teacher can destroy children’s faith by teaching that chance physical changes determine everything about humans. Teaching human evolution from primates makes humans no different from any other form of life on Earth. Children do not need to be taught that survival of the fittest governs every part of all life. There is a close correlation between the teaching of human evolution, playground bullying, and the historical justification of slavery. They all center around the survival of the fittest.

This ministry is based on the belief that science and faith in God are symbiotic. They support each other. It is bad science to teach theory as fact. It is also wrong to be selective in what valid data we use to make decisions about what we teach children. As a science teacher in public schools for 41 years, I know the pressure that teachers face. But avoiding bad science and bad theology is the answer to the evolution/creation controversy. The current pandemic may offer parents and teachers a unique opportunity to improve the education of our students and reduce the tension between science and faith in America today.

Data from Christianity Today, September 2020 page 22 and CHRISTIANITYTODAY.COM.