Debunking Darwinism #6: Peppered Moths |
by Regis Nicoll |
The chicanery of the fossil “record” and Haeckel’s embryo drawings also taints the famed peppered-moth study of Britain. In what was touted as “evolution in action,” researchers “found” that light-colored moths underwent natural selection, turning dark, after the pollution buildup on tree trunks made light moths more visible to predators. It was later learned that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks and that photos to support the findings were staged by gluing dead moths to trees. Nonetheless, the shoddy moth study adorns school textbooks as a classic proof of Darwinism.
As recently as 2005, Patrick Chisholm of the Christian Science Monitor referenced the study to emphasize, once more, that “Evolution is fact.” Miffed at the wrongheadedness of school administrators aimed at putting evolution back in its rightful place, Chisholm wrote, “Saying evolution is a theory is like saying the earth revolving around the sun is a theory.” Then again, if a frog-turned-prince is myth, it doesn't become fact just because the timeframe changes to 100 million years.
Chisholm went on to cite drug-resistant viruses and chemical resistant insects to bolster his point. As is common among evolution enthusiasts, Chisholm makes the speculative leap from micro-evolution: the generally accepted process of adaptation through genetic variation and inheritance, to the neither observed nor demonstrated phenomenon of macro-evolution: the emergence of new and improved species by those same accepted processes.
Regis,
You are spending most of your time debunking frauds, which is much easier than debunking Darwinism, and much less instructive. As I pointed out earlier, there have been many frauds of Jesus Christ, yet we do not reject the true Jesus because of this. What you are doing is like someone purporting to examine the validity of Christianity and then spending all their time debunking the various frauds and cults. You are ignoring the actual evidence for evolution and attacking straw men. Please actually engage the data. I have a request for the last half of this series. Either make a turn and try to be more objective, or change the title of the blog to “Debunking What Creationists Imagine Darwinism To Be”.
Posted by: Gregor | February 07, 2009 at 10:56 AM
I have to agree with Gregor that this is a straw man. So what if peppered moths don't spend as much time resting on tree trunks? (They spend it on branches instead). There is a bit more subtlety to what really happens than what you find in a typical textbook, but the basic findings have stood the test of time: manmade pollution caused dark moths to hide more easily than white moths, and the population changed to represent that. This is an example of natural selection.
Posted by: Ben | February 07, 2009 at 11:42 AM
I wonder if the evolutionists here could discuss their precommitments:
Why do they disbelieve God?
Why do they automatically believe that the current dominant operant paradigm is objectively true? Have they never read Kuhn?
And what is their proof that meaning and direction can arise from chance plus nothing, and in what time scale, and how does that compare to the standard-model cosmic time-scale?
The reason the peppered moths are not a strawman is because they are still used to 'prove' evolutionism and deny tenure to highly accomplished scientists and open scientific inquiry among students.
Posted by: labrialumn | February 07, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Gregor and Ben, in high school I was shown the film of birds picking the more visible moths. Imagine my disillusionment to discover that moths don't just sit there waiting to be eaten.
Imagine my disillusionment to discover that people I respected had deliberately lied to me and my classmates - and a whole generation.
And as Regis points out, this particular story is still being used. It seems to be stuck in the scientific culture as one of those evidences everyone "knows" to be true.
So it makes me seriously wonder what else that we've been told is actually not so. I worked briefly in a medical lab, doing research, about the time that fraud in that area (publishing clinical trials where the data had been either modified, or simply fabricated) hit the front pages. I was initially stunned that what I thought were noble scientists engaged in life-giving pursuits would stoop to such behavior. I then learned about Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and other fossil frauds and falsehoods like the horse sequence, the famous monkey-to-man sequence (I love this parody, in spite of the nudity: http://getgood.typepad.com/getgood_strategic_marketi/evolution.jpg ), and so on. New revelations about Louis Leakey, Donald Johanson, and others are appearing all the time. The late Michael Chrichton tapped into the tension here when he wrote stories about noble and heroic scientists fighting to overcome disasters caused by greedy businessmen and even that thought-to-be rare breed, greedy fellow scientists.
It's reasonable, Gregor, to wonder what is actual evidence for evolution, and what is pure selfish opportunism. The peppered moth study was clearly the latter.
Ben, you've hit on a recurring pattern in the teaching of evolution: first, widely promote and popularize some finding. Next, defend it vigorously by impugning the character of critics. Then, admit over time that the original study was flawed but the basic idea is true. Finally, drop all reference to the original study and simply claim that the evidence is well-known.
I've been swindled both by creationists and by evolutionists. You'll pardon me, please, if I skeptically refuse to accept the conventional wisdom anymore.
Posted by: LeeQuod | February 07, 2009 at 12:33 PM
And I should add that if I expected anyone to vigorously denounce fraud in evolutionary science, I'd think it would be evolutionary scientists. Instead, they spend all their time attacking creationists, and offering "Yeah, well, the study was faked but it was done for a good cause" excuses for evolutionists. Has Dr. Eugenie Scott, to pick someone, ever publicly blasted the authors of the moth study for having done significant damage to the cause of science, and called for their names to be remembered in infamy? Has she or anyone else done so with the passion they have for blasting intelligent design proponents?
This further strengthens the position that Darwinism is not science, but ideology. Truth has been murdered by her supposed defenders.
Posted by: LeeQuod | February 07, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Hi labrialumn - to answer your questions: I do believe in God and am a Christian. I have not read Kuhn but do understand the idea of paradigm shifts. Evolutionary theory is not the be-all-and-end-all, but it is the best explanation of the facts that we have right now (and it's done a great job so far!). I'm not sure I understand your next question - I guess "kinetics/quantum mechanics" is my explanation for our understanding of the timescales of mutations. Also, I do not believe (as Gregor does?) that the peppered moth studies are a fraud, but that the way Regis presented his arguments against them was strawman-ish.
LeeQuod, I think we misunderstood each other. I don't think the initial moth study was completely flawed, but they used the best techniques they had available at the time. Even so, subsequent studies have shown the basic findings to still be correct. This is how science works: you make a hypothesis, you test it as best as you are able, and you report your results. Often you have to simplify your tests at first... that's just part of science.
In addition, the hoaxes/mistakes are almost always picked out by the scientists in the field - the Piltdown man, the Nebraska man, etc. I'm glad you're not taking anyone's word blindly, but there's too much information for us laymen to be able to properly judge all of evolutionary theory. I guess we do the best we can by trying to get both sides of the debate. My beef is not with legitimate claims against evolution, but with bad arguments (ad hominem, strawmen, etc) and bad understandings of how science works.
There are flaws in the theory of gravity, but we keep using it as the best model we have. And quantum mechanics and relativity fundamentally disagree with each other (so far), but we wouldn't have computers or satellites without them. We don't call Newton a fraud just because his theories were incomplete.. this is just how science works. And no, saying the Earth was made in 6 literal days does *not* simplify the issue.
Posted by: Ben | February 07, 2009 at 05:20 PM
I have to ask those Christians who demand proof of biblical-creationism (that is, before they will relinquish even Theistic Evolution): why, when there is no scientific proof of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, are you nonetheless ostensibly willing to stake your eternal soul on the biblical record that one Man, unique in the history of mankind, defied the laws of nature and rose from the dead? If you can accept THAT scientifically “preposterous” event as true, why do you stumble over the biblical account of creation?
Of course, I know the answer: you feel that with respect to creation/evolution empirical evidence suggests either the bible has serious errors in it, or else we have misinterpreted parts of it en masse. All I can say is, dear brother and/or sister in Christ, be very, very careful there. Before jumping to conclusions which have incalculably profound implications, let Darwinism first provide satisfactory answers to the prodigious problems that plague it. And let those of us who profess faith in Christ recall that “the Serpent (Satan) was the most subtle beast of the field” (Genesis 3:1). Which means, we are unlikely to have a palpable sense of it even if we are about to be struck by his envenomed fangs. (Translation: we could be in danger of straying from Christ and not even realize it).
But back to my point. My point is, if we chose to accept on faith (i.e., chose to take a certain Reliable Someone at His Word) a single verbal postulate that in the laboratory of life is both fantastic and utterly unprovable, aren’t we being grossly inconsistent if we accept a theory – especially a theory that has serious flaws – which contradicts what that Reliable Person has told us in no uncertain terms?
Don’t get me wrong: I’m unequivocally all for following the trail of facts wherever they lead because I know that at the end of the line the truth (pure science) and The Truth (the Reliable Person, John 14:6) will converge. But I would think that in the meantime we would want to avoid at all cost premature capitulation to the seductive charms of a theory (Darwinism) that is becoming increasingly tenuous, and that has thus far evinced a strong and almost unexceptioned tendency to drive people away from Christ, not toward Him.
Please remember: we can only be seduced by that which we find greatly attractive. And what is more attractive than that which seems to us an angel of light? (2 Corinthians 11:14)
Posted by: Rolley Haggard | February 07, 2009 at 07:49 PM
Rolley:
1. Resurrection defines Christianity. Genesis does not.
2. Resurrection could be imperceptable whatever happens.
3. You have to stake your soul on something. And given that Judaism accepts keepers of the Nohides, Islam accepts People of the Book(or used to), neither Buddhism or Hinduism threaten much of a hell or offer much of a heaven, and atheism is just plain blah. So it really isn't all that bad a bet.
4. Is anyone contending that it is necessary for one's salvation to believe that evolution is false? If not some might think it preferable to avoid having one's reserves sucked up in continual intellectual-Verduns.
5. If one actually believes the scientific evidence points to evolution it is arguably contrary to intellectual honor, and most foolish to say one does not. One can just as easily argue the reverse; that trust sometimes requires defying superficial evidence and Othello would have been better off not listening to Iago. But if one does not believe the question is vital to salvation, then that is different.
6. The Resurrection was a miracle. And miracles are completely outside the scope of Science. Evolution is a theory of biological history which impinges on religion. One's judgement of the probability miracles is based on one's concept of God. One's judgement of Science is based on one's concept of the Earth. Those are separate issues.
Which does not mean I am a Thiestic Evolutionist. It does mean that I don't think one's opinion about that is as important as one's opinion about the Resurrection.
Posted by: Jason Taylor | February 08, 2009 at 03:09 AM
Another thing Rolley is that it is in fact possible to reconcile Genisis and Evolution. I have thought of ways myself and while they sould over-ingenious and sci-fi-ish, the fact that they are conceivable indicates that the two theories are not necessarily incompatable.
Whereas believing in Resurrection is not believing in something that is Scientifically absurd. It is believing in something which is considered a miracle and which has always been known to be, in the absense of a miracle, not merely "scientifically" absurd but simply absurd.
Posted by: Jason Taylor | February 08, 2009 at 03:26 AM
Nobody can proove wether god oes or does not excist. It's about probability.
And it is way more likely for there not to be a good, then the other way around.
Also, someone doesn't need to disproove anything before it has been shown true. Which religion hasen't.
Posted by: lkljj | February 08, 2009 at 08:29 AM
Jason,
“Resurrection defines Christianity”; no disagreement there, but I’m not sure resurrection is that readily separable from other Christian tenets like the cross, the incarnation, etc. Isn’t it like saying, “the heart defines life”? While true, so do other vital organs like the lungs, the brain, the liver, etc. A lot is resting on the reliability of the scriptures, including and perhaps especially the doctrine of the resurrection. To accept what the scriptures say about the resurrection while at the same time having grave reservations about the scriptures themselves seems to me a slippery slope indeed.
“Genesis does not [define Christianity].” Except that both Christ (Mark 10:6) and Paul (Romans 5:12ff; 1 Cor 15:21ff) lay great emphasis on the historicity of Adam and Eve and Paul, especially, predicates the ways and means of our salvation on a traditional, literal understanding of Genesis.
I don’t for a minute think that one’s view on creation/evolution decides one’s eternal destiny. But I do think it is demonstrable that conceding the reliability of the scriptures has a marked tendency to eventuate in the baby (belief in the resurrection) being thrown out with the bath water (a literal interpretation of Genesis). All I’m saying is, unless/until Darwinism presents evidence that is virtually incontestable (which it has not), Christians would be wise out of deference to the plain sense of the bible upon which their most holy faith is founded to be respectfully dubious of evolution, and to patiently allow the slow machinery of honest inquiry determine the question.
Until the verdict is in, is it not better to be perceived a fool in the eyes of the world for Christ’s sake than, professing to be wise, be a fool in God’s sight?
Posted by: Rolley Haggard | February 08, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Ikljj, on what grounds do you claim that it is more likly that there is not a God.
And to be an Agnostic you don't need to disprove. To be an Atheist you do. Or else change the criteria of the necessity of proof.
Moreover to be an individual Atheist is one thing. To urge others to be Atheists is to urge them to accept all the social and psychological corralaries to that. For which others are right to demand proof.
And asking that "religion" prove itself is meaningless as no one really serves "religion":
"There's a religion in the valley by the Wild Wood".
That is kind of like a Superhero fighting for "Prevailing Opinion, Prevailing Social Mores, and the ideals of a given Society"
Posted by: Jason Taylor | February 08, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I just hope I can post this before labrialumn gets his flamethrower refueled.
Jason, it is with some trepidation that I attempt to summarize Rolley, since I don't think I can improve upon what he said - merely shorten it. It is interesting *historically* that Darwin's theory and the Documentary Hypothesis of Genesis arose at around the same time. Suddenly people had both a new theory of human origins, and a new theory of how the old theory appeared (to wit: Genesis was a myth that expanded over multiple rewrites). These were the one-two punch against Genesis - and Christianity, since as we've already discussed, the Darwinists (especially the bulldog Huxley) had an agenda of weakening Christian influence in their society.
For me, the question became how much of the Bible I'd believe. Did I throw out all of Genesis? Certainly there's not much debate that Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob/Israel and the Twelve Tribes are historical. So it's not *all* of Genesis that goes away.
And, does any other part of the Bible - particularly the New Testament, and most particularly the Gospels, especially when Jesus was speaking - refer to Genesis as if it was historical? Indeed, there are many such places. If Genesis 1-11 goes, then they have to go, too. That has serious implications for what defines Christian behavior.
So if we indeed could separate belief in the Resurrection from belief in Genesis, there would be no debate over Darwin. However, they occur in the same Bible, and not in an isolated way. You can wind up with Jefferson's Bible, with all the miracles clipped out. And then you have a new problem: by whose authority does one decide the parts that stay and the parts that go?
Hence, Rolley's excellent warning is extremely apt.
Posted by: LeeQuod | February 08, 2009 at 02:13 PM
A serious portion of my biology lectures last week were devoted to the Peppered Moth story. Disappointing, then, to hear that they were fakes. Can I have a link to the debunking somewhere so that I can share it with my bio instructor?
Posted by: Kari | February 08, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Again, that implies that Genesis is incompatable with evolution. Which in turn implies that Genesis is meant to be a scientific treatise. Genesis is written like a story, not a scientific analysis.
Posted by: Jason Taylor | February 08, 2009 at 04:31 PM
My point, rolley and leequod isn't really about evolution theistic or other. The point is that sometimes you seem to be in danger of letting your reserves be sucked up in a prolonged engagement while the enemy is feeling round your flanks. And in this case you are in danger of inflicting friendly fire casualties.
Posted by: Jason Taylor | February 08, 2009 at 04:51 PM
Or to put it even more clearly, Rolley and LeeQuod there is danger in making anti-evolution to be part of Christianity instead of vaguely associated with it.
Posted by: Jason Taylor | February 08, 2009 at 04:59 PM
Here's a good start, Kari, demonstrating both the accusation and the defense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_moths_and_men
Simply Googling "peppered moth film" will lead you to many pro-Darwinist articles. Here is one from the creationist perspective: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5559
It is absolutely true that the film I was shown in high school had moths glued to trees. But the film included no mention that this was a dramatization for educational purposes; rather, the voice-over reinforced it as truth. I do remember coming away at the time wondering how long the filmmakers waited for the industrial pollution to subside. The defense found here, near the bottom, is interesting: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199903/0312.html
The relevant bit, for the next time you watch Nova or Discovery, is this:
"The photographs are not part of science, they are educational aids to
illustrate the diffence in crypsis of the forms on different backgrounds.
I see nothing wrong in this. Most of the natural history films that appear
on our televisions, including those of our beloved Sir David Attenborough
involve considerable manipulation of organisms to enable footage to be
shot. As long as the behaviour film is what actually happens in true life,
and the organisms are in no way mistreated, there is nothing wrong with
this."
But as Darwinists themselves pointed out, the behavior in the film is *not* what actually happens in true life. It is instead a successful attempt to implant an image into the minds of impressionable young people.
And William Wilberforce would be appalled; where was the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Moths during all this?
Note that the defense "You don't understand how science works" is a form of the accusation that only the ignorant and/or stupid disagree with Darwin, as promoted by H.L. Mencken. I.e., it's ad hominem. The movie "Expelled" is primarily an attempt to expose the ad hominem and its use as a justification by scientists who have academic power to bully their colleagues. You'll see the same attitude and actions reflected by scientific responses to this issue.
Plus, it's a (sorry) textbook example of how believers in evolution circle the wagons when threatened. Instead of agreeing with the critics (horrors! Agree with those *creationists*?!?), the evolutionists quickly point out other experiments with better design.
And they let the flawed study stand, being used even to this day, rather than insist on its removal from science teaching. Because they're not inspiring young minds to practice real science, they're actually indoctrinating young minds into a worldview.
Posted by: LeeQuod | February 08, 2009 at 05:07 PM
Kari--Here's a link with some useful references. http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth/
Posted by: Regis Nicoll | February 08, 2009 at 05:08 PM
If the Bible started with the history of Abraham, and was simply silent about "creation", would Christianity exist, and would there be an operative definition of Christian behavior? Yes, of course. The creation story is not essential. The truth of Christianity does not hinge on the truth of Genesis - it hinges on the truth that is revealed by the very few who actually live it.
Posted by: David | February 08, 2009 at 06:03 PM
And, Kari, one bit of counsel based on observation and some bitter personal experience, plus a sudden feeling of concern for you: please be careful how you share this information with your instructor. You may be right, but (as "Expelled" shows us) you - via your GPA - may suffer.
True scientists, irrespective of their beliefs on the creation-evolution debate, are always willing to accept and evaluate new data dispassionately. However, not all instructors are true scientists - some are idealogues. It's best not to find out the hard way which one yours is.
Posted by: LeeQuod | February 08, 2009 at 07:09 PM
Jason,
Genesis may be written like a story, but if the plain sense of its narrative is completely contradicted by the theory of evolution, at least one of the accounts – Genesis or Darwinism - has to be wrong. And because so much hangs on the plain sense of Genesis being right, I think it behooves those of us who call ourselves Christians to be exceedingly careful before adopting or being uncritically sympathetic with a view that has the potential to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith.
I think attempts to reconcile science and Genesis are laudable -- so long as they do not reconcile at the expense of objective truth. Objective truth here includes not only the evidence brought forth by Darwinists, but also by advocates of Intelligent Design and by worthy historical scholars who have chronicled eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and have painstakingly demonstrated time and again over the centuries that the scriptures are reliable.
Theistic evolution hopes to preserve both Darwinism and, in some fashion, Genesis. But if TE does this at the expense of biblical integrity, it has paid too high a price. If evolution were a peripheral issue like a particular take on eschatology, I’d feel differently. But this is a watershed issue. The outcome of this debate has staggeringly great implications. And it would be irresponsible for one who calls himself a Christian to keep silent on his objections to that which is inimical to the faith for fear of offending the sensibilities of some fellow believers who do not see clearly the dire implications of letting Darwinism’s advance proceed unchallenged. I’m making allusion here to the “friendly fire” you mentioned. I have no wish to be contentious or to upset any, least of all believers. But when the stakes are this high, I’d rather alienate some friends than to sit back and watch their faith get systematically destroyed. To adopt your metaphor, I don’t think Darwinism is a mere diversionary maneuver. I think it’s a full-blown frontal assault on the foundations of Christianity. If the scientific community were more open to all the evidence, such as that favoring ID, I’d be a little less up in arms. But it’s clearly not. It has an agenda, and that agenda is clearly anti-theistic. And as long as that’s the case, then I, for one, am going to willingly choose to make this a big part of Christianity. I hope to do it with grace and integrity, of course, because I’m not out to win an argument or beat an opponent; I’m simply out to try and help us all arrive at the whole truth on all our important questions.
As I’ve said before, I have no doubt there will at some point be perfect agreement between what God has said in His word and what science is able to verify empirically.
But at present, those two are poles apart, and unless something big changes, the one cannot win without the other losing.
Posted by: Rolley Haggard | February 08, 2009 at 07:35 PM
LeeQuod,
to say that someone "doesn't understand how science works" is a reasonable and fair argument as long as it's backed up by fact. If you, having left your car lights on all night, took your car to a mechanic and he told you that it wasn't starting because of a timing belt problem, wouldn't it be fair to say that he doesn't know much about cars?
But my argument would still have been just an ad hominem, except that I provided reasons *why* I thought some people don't understand science. Do you disagree with the reasons I gave, or just the conclusion I drew based on them? I can provide more evidence if you like (both of scientists correcting scientists, and how/why experiments are simplified).
Galileo supposedly dropped different sized weights off of the tower of Pisa to compare whether heavier weights fell faster. Was his experiment fatally flawed by air resistance and the lack of a stopwatch? It's not enough to say that an experiment is "unnatural" (as they all are); you have to provide reasons why that specific unnaturality invalidates the results.
Science has one rule: "Show me the data." For biology, evolution is the only theory so far that meets that rule.
Posted by: Ben | February 08, 2009 at 07:42 PM
David,
The fact is the bible DID start with the story of creation and then subsequently made the credibility of Christ and his apostles dependent upon the veracity of the creation story, for both Christ and Paul obviously took the creation account literally (see Matthew 19:4, 1 Timothy 2:13ff, Romans 5:12ff, etc).
So, if Paul and even Christ were mistaken about the creation story which they got from Genesis, what else were they mistaken about? If what Paul scribed into the NT is wrong on one matter, what else might he be wrong about? By what mechanism do you differentiate which statements are true and which are false?
Slippery slope.
---
Ben,
Biological science may, in theory, have one rule: (“show me the data”), but in practice it’s more like, “show me data that supports Darwinism.” If you disagree, please cite one verifiable reference to a RESPECTED study within the scientific community and outside of Intelligent Design circles that seriously challenges rather than buttresses Darwinism.
Posted by: Rolley Haggard | February 08, 2009 at 09:24 PM
Hey Rolley - I may be able to find reputable studies that highlight the current holes in evolution (if that's what you want - sort of a "here's what we need to figure out next"), but I would have a hard time finding a good study that seriously *challenged* evolution. Nearly all biologists honestly and objectively believe in evolution. Biology is not different from chemistry, materials science, or solid state physics - the theory that survives is the one with data. Don't believe me? Go look up what the researching biologists have to say about YEC/ID arguments.
Heh, this reminds me of something from my school newspaper a few months before I graduated. I went to a highly ranked Christian private college in the SE. In the newspaper, there was an ongoing debate between the biology professors and one of the psychology teachers about evolution and ID, with all of the biologists lining up with evolution and poking holes in the ID arguments.
The creationists here should probably consider (at least as an exercise) what would happen to their faith if evolution was "proven" true. I agree, Rolley, that evolutionary theory is dangerous, but I think that's because most of us were raised as Biblical literalists. I personally believe that after 150 years evolutionary theory isn't going anywhere - if Christianity is going to survive, it's going to have to adapt.
Posted by: Ben | February 09, 2009 at 01:23 AM
Rolley,
You have made your point. Now will you address my question? If there was no creation story in the bible, then there would be one less sentence ascribed to Jesus. He would still be who he is, and his truth claims would still have to be "verified" in the laboratory of life - except, of course, his ultimate truth claim, which we will all get to verify - or "debunk" - in due time. Too bad no one will be publishing their results on that last experiment.
Posted by: David | February 09, 2009 at 06:35 AM
David,
I don’t disagree with your hypothetical scenario. Problem is, we don’t live in a hypothetical world. The creation story WAS included, and Christ DID refer to it. So whereas in your hypothetical scenario the creation story would be irrelevant, in the real world it IS relevant because Christ Himself MADE it relevant by implicitly declaring the literal account of the creation story reliable.
If He knew better and misled us, He’s a liar and a deceiver. If He did not know better, then the Father is a liar and a deceiver, because Christ said He (Christ) spoke only such things that the Father told Him to (John 8:28, 12:49, 14:10).
The truth of Christianity rests on the integrity of the One who claimed to be the Savior of the World. Part of “who Christ is” is “what Christ said”. If He is found to be lacking in integrity, Houston we’ve got a problem: namely, Christ’s truth claims are proving unverifiable in the laboratory of life.
P.S. You spoke of the “last experiment.” With heaven and earth as my witness, when the time comes and as able, I hereby pledge that if no one else does so first, I will publish the results of that “last experiment”. And I’d be honored, David, if you would be first to review the evidence presented and take the mic and announce your candid verdict.
---
Ben,
Actually, I’m such a huge skeptic and stickler for “proof” that, to the angst of some of my closest friends I can honestly echo that famous (?) statement by atheist Dave Trissel as if I’d made it myself:
“Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer yes to this you are not being honest with yourself.”
I’m not afraid of where HONEST and meticulous inquiry will lead. If, as you suggest, evolution is one day proven true, it will not shake my faith (although I know many whose faith WOULD be sorely tried by such a finding), but it sure will make me a better Rubik’s cube player (i.e., as I reexamine my presuppositions and sharpen my analytical skills). As a decided Christian I rest in the confidence that all truth is God’s truth. The point is, I’m not afraid of the truth; but give me TRUTH, not merely that which you insist must, regardless of the facts, be the truth.
But note the emphasis above on the word “HONEST”. The biggest problem (not the only problem, but the biggest one) I have with evolutionists is the “religious” fervor with which they defend and champion their “orthodoxy”. Most of the ones with whom I’m acquainted evince a “burn them at the stake” intolerance for those who HONESTLY differ. Whence cometh this insecurity if not from a fear that perhaps the truth is something other than what they want it to be?
I find the evidence for Intelligent Design to be most compelling, and IF evolution is ever proven, I will be the first to admit, well guys, you won that round. But I will also be the most surprised son of a monkey that ever breathed.
Posted by: Rolley Haggard | February 09, 2009 at 12:16 PM
So to totally shock almost everyone, I agree with labrialumn on almost everything except two issues: the first is how to address controversial issues in a public forum; I favor a more accommodating approach than his. The second is biblical fidelity, where I favor a more stringent approach. (Yes, it's possible.)
In particular for Biblical fidelity, have a look at two places: Luke 2:23-37, where someone Christians would presumably call a historical figure (Jesus) is related to people who are also presumed to be historical - until we get to the end?? So either this genealogy is highly misleading (and if it's in the Bible, one would wonder what else is then also misleading), or else it's true and Adam is also a historical figure - not an archetype, myth, or anything else.
Similarly, in Romans 5:12-17 we have Jesus tied to Adam as if both were real people.
So while it may be possible to reconcile these passages with the evolution of peppered moths, it needs to be done in a way that does not mythologize the founder of Christianity. I have not seen this done to my satisfaction.
Posted by: LeeQuod | February 09, 2009 at 03:07 PM
Ben, if Darwinian evolution is true, Christianity and the Gospel are false. So would be Judaism and Islam. Zoroatrianism, being mythical might survive, but what would be the point of a religion you knew was mythical?
There would still be a creator god, but he would be the devil, not the loving God of the Bible.
Posted by: labrialumn | February 09, 2009 at 08:30 PM
What you are missing, David, Jason and others, is Creation and the Fall. Without them, there is no need for the Cross. There is no Christianity. If Darwinism is true, then the creator, if there was one, used those activities which the Bible calls sin, and for which Christ died on the Cross to atone for, as "Very Good" and the means of creating and bringing about life. Christian morality would be *immoral*.
The truth of Christianity does hinge on Genesis, and the identity of the rabbi from Nazareth.
Genesis isn't written like a story, it is written in standard Hebrew vav-consecutive historical narrative, starting with the very first verse. It isn't poetry and it isn't fiction. Those genres do not apply with any sort of literary integrity.
Ben, -scientists- have a different set of rules than science. They are "don't rock the paradigm" and "don't upset those who give you your grants, or your thesis advisory committee".
Actual biologists, I am told by more than one person in the know, privately say that they are operating on the basis of intelligent design, because that is what has predictive power, they don't dare say anything to appear to be disloyal to Darwinism, though, or they'd never get published, they'd lose their grants ,their tenure, their careers - as did Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, formerly an astronomer at Iowa State who had discovered several planets (many times what Herschel accomplished) but his career was destroyed with the attendant cost to science and discovery of planetary systems, because of the fanatical hatred of Christians among the faculty at Iowa State. This is well-documented, in addition to which I also have it second-hand. At only one remove from the man himself.
I was raised as an evolutionist. Then I became a Christian. Several years later, upon examining the scientific evidence I realized that the creation models were closer to describing the natural world than the Darwinist 'just so' stories. Like you, I did for a few years live in the cognitive dissonance between Christianity and Darwinism.
Are you aware that you write as if you have a prior commitment to Darwinism than you do to Christ, if you believe it is Christianity which must adapt to the current dominant operant paradigm in science faculties, rather than believing that God knows what He did and how, and didn't lie to us when He told us about it.
LeeQuod, where do you believe I am not in agreement with the grammatical-historical method and Biblical inerrancy? Where is my blind spot?
Posted by: labrialumn | February 09, 2009 at 08:48 PM
Both Darwinian Evolution and Scripture could be true if, just to begin with:
A. There really are multiverses and Adam and Eve or Noah travelled from a pocket universe into this one.
B. The description in the first chapter of Genesis is representing the programing of the Earth to bring forth given species at a given time rather then representing the actual organisms brought forth in a solid form. That would still be creation.
The question you asked is not whether Evolution could take place. The question was "how can Christians believe thus and so". That could be taken as an accusation of heresy and that is something one must be careful about.
Posted by: Jason Taylor | February 09, 2009 at 09:34 PM
labrialumn, dear friend, I hope that you will be as honest with me as I am about to be with you. And I sincerely regret that this is being published for all to read instead of being done privately as it should be; it's my fault for naming you above, and for that, I'm profoundly sorry.
Your question contains its own answer, though. I mentioned two points on which we differ, and you were only interested in the second one - yet it's a result of the first. Your approach to the Bible is excellent, but you miss the meta-narrative. Jesus told us the Scriptures could be summarized by love of God and love of neighbor - particularly those who revile you because they see you as a Samaritan. Evidence of love of neighbor would be in the form of being sacrificially kind to the bigots, expecting that they would remain... bigots.
So I feel that your approach to all these controversial questions is too much "my way or the highway". I would prefer to see more accommodation toward those who disagree; without it, I would not myself be a Christian because I too was raised as an evolutionist. So both of us have had to change - as must others. I want to give them the freedom to do so at their own pace, not mine, drawing them to Christ instead of dragging or pushing.
I stress that this is based on some of your less-than-charitable postings I have seen over our years together at The Point. And I *truly* want to emphasize that I am worthy of upbraiding myself, and would hope that you would hesitate to correct me only to examine your motives, briefly. As for me, I'll accept whatever you send, irrespective of the (perceived) spirit in which it's delivered; faithful are the wounds of a friend.
God bless you for your firm stance on the Truth. I appreciate that you've been a bulwark; whenever I see your postings, I know they'll not waiver, and that's been a comfort to me.
In the final analysis, our speech must always be seasoned with the salt of Biblical truth, to bring out the overwhelmingly satisfying flavor of eternal life, and to prevent the decay of the world. But lest we create stumbling blocks to those who are working their way to Christ, our speech must be - uh, "peppered", too, with remembering who we were and seeing a lot of ourselves in "them". To do otherwise would be to allow the moths in, to destroy.
Posted by: LeeQuod | February 09, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Jason,
The issue isn't so much whether there *is* a creator, but what sort of Person is He?
If the multiverse imagining were true (it is presently untestable, is it not?), and God created as the Bible says in one universe and we live in a different one, that would seem to leave some issues with this one to be explained - and there is no indication of this in the Bible, yet such a thing would not have been hard to say or understand in ancient Hebrew - consider the first world, second world, third world legends of certain Southwestern indigenous cultures.
It would be possible to have a limited form of 'theistic evolution' theologically, as long as you don't have the results of the Fall before the Fall. But the Bible doesn't describe any such thing, as near as I can tell. One can have a sort of neo-Lamarkian theistic evolution where God wrote the code, environmental conditions on the edges of an ecosystem resulted in turning on and off pre-existing genes for adaption, giving you ring species, and that would not require death, suffering or sin to accomplish. I think it rather likely, in fact. But that would also fall under "microevolution" rather than macroevolution.
When the Gospel itself is at stake, warning about the danger of heresy is not an impossible or careless matter.
It would seem to me that you have misread my 'tone' over the years to see me as uncharitable, when I am simply being firm and confident about things I know to be true within the areas of my knowledge and expertise, and of course the proper application of Law and Gospel. To afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. To shout "don't drink that" when the bottle contains H2SO4 instead of water, which might sound angry, but is actually the operation of love. Where there is forgiveness there is complete and total forgiveness and acceptance, but where there is willful rebellion, it is well to remember that "our God is a consuming fire." and "if even an animal touches the mountain, it must be killed." Kindness requires remembering and reminding that we are dealing with high tension lines, not AAA batteries when it comes to God's holiness and wrath; His justice. Both Law and Gospel are more amazing and more awe-some than we often recall. We aren't playing with an easy-bake oven, but a blast furnace. God is Holy and Love and to diminish the one for the sake of 'mildness' is to diminish the other as well. They are intrinsically connected.
Posted by: labrialumn | February 10, 2009 at 01:48 PM
labrialumn wrote: "to see me as uncharitable"
No, a thousand times no, my friend - not you, your *postings*. You and I have never met face-to-face, and for all I know you may be the sweetest person on the face of the Earth until your fingers touch a keyboard.
One of the most revolting characteristics of Darwinism is the strong implication that stupid people got no reason to live. (With apologies to Randy Newman - or maybe not.) Smarter people improve the survivability of our species. And of course, religious people are stupid, with creationists being the most profoundly stupid of all. This is, of course, Eugenics 101 as you're quite well aware, but with the twist of equating stupidity to wrong belief. I am convinced that this attitude has no place in the Church. Yes, we need to be ready to always give an answer for the hope that lies within us. But. ...we need to do so with *gentleness*. And *respect*. Those two are extremely challenging to do in print. One of the great joys of hanging out at The Point is to see extremely passionate people writing about explosive issues and yet managing to be gentle with and respectful toward those with whom they disagree.
I believe God loves heretics and pagans and everyone else, and wants to woo them. I would rather condemn ideas than people. I appreciate your firm stance for holiness, but it's not always too inviting. It helps me to imagine my respondent as a person sitting at their computer, reading my words and reacting to them.
Plus, I visualize Gina standing behind me, saying in a schoolmarm-ish voice "Watch your tone, please." And holding a ruler. :-) A completely false caricature, I'm certain, but it works for me. And I try to remember to have fun - survival of the wittiest.
Posted by: LeeQuod | February 10, 2009 at 03:31 PM
I understand from my Lutheran beliefs - and from the example of the prophets, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the apostles - that God uses Law and Gospel.
Law to those who do not realize their guilt, or who don't care about their guilt, and Gospel to those who do and want to be repent and be forgiven.
The post-modern evangelical minimization of God's holiness has not led to more people coming to Christ, or to a greater influence on our culture. Quite the contrary. I think we should follow the example of God and His messengers on the hypothesis that they are wiser than what seems good to us.
There is probably also the fact that post-moderns have gotten used to spineless Christians and the notion that there is no such thing as truth, so that when someone is confident, they might be (quite wrongly) offended. I don't think that can really be helped, since truth is. As many note, their attitude would not work with the IRS.
Posted by: labrialumn | February 11, 2009 at 04:33 PM