Dawkins

This is by Ed Gungor and appeared in Relevant Magazine. Apart from not being into "belief" personally, I think this is a good piece.

Can we believe in evolution and a Creator?

Arguing for God being the Creator of the universe doesn’t necessitate an attack on the theory of evolution. Don’t misunderstand me; some evolutionists (particularly some of the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, who argues in his new book people who don't believe in evolution are on the same level as Holocaust deniers) have gone ape over their theory (forgive the pun) to the point that they seem to forget it is a theory, and refer to it as if it is an undeniable scientific fact. (Please note: when I speak about evolution, I’m referring to Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory: life began millions of years ago from a kind of primordial ooze that gave rise to single-celled creatures, which then evolved into more complex ones, all the way up to we humans.)

Is the theory of evolution true? It definitely has its problems, but whether it is or isn’t true doesn’t impact the notion that God is the Creator of the world. Scientific theories about origins simply talk about how things came to be, not whether God was behind it. For Christians to argue about scientific theory—any theory—because they think it attacks the notion that God is the Creator seems silly.

What if the point of the creation narrative in Genesis was more poetic than literal? Historically, the Church has always held this position about creation. The Church’s take was simply that God created the world. That’s it. Before the nineteenth century, the Church never tried to specify how or when God did it. Those in the ancient world (to whom the text was written) did not think in literal or scientific terms, nor would they have cared about such notions. The big news of Genesis to the ancient world was that ONE God, not many, was responsible for all we see. That radical, salient point rang through that world which believed in many gods—not one—and had absolutely nothing to do with science.

A belief in God does not necessitate that a person accept the position that the earth is just six thousand years old. The historical, theistic argument is simply that we believe God is the why behind what is here, whenever and however it got here. Scientists may ultimately tell us how and when everything happened in ways not articulated in the biblical text, but science will never be able to tell us why. Why is the stuff of belief. Understanding this helps us be open to the research and questioning of science, while recognizing such questioning is not an enemy to faith.

Science does not have to be an enemy of faith. Nanoscientist James Tour, a professor at Rice University, spends his life building molecules in the lab. He says, “I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

One could say that the order of non-living things—the laws that govern physical objects, the earth orbiting the sun, the seasons coming and going, the laws governing atoms and the subatomic universe—is enough evidence to assert that there is a God who designed things to be the way they are. But the most compelling evidence—the evidence that seems to scream: THERE IS A GOD! — comes from things that are alive.

Dr. Walter L. Bradly, an expert on polymers and thermodynamics, says, “Ice crystals have a certain amount of order, but it’s simple, repetitive, and has a low amount of information, sort of like filling a book with the words, ‘I love you, I love you, I love you’ over and over again. In contrast, the kind of complexity we see in living matter has a high information content that specifies how to assemble amino acids in the right sequence, like a book being filled with meaningful sentences that communicate a story. Unquestionably, energy can create patterns of simple order. For instance, you could see ripples on the sand at a beach and know they were created by the action of waves. But if you saw the words, ‘John loves Mary’ and a heart with an arrow drawn in the sand, you know that energy alone didn’t create that.”

Even the smallest, single-celled organisms have more complexity within their cellular walls then anything scientists have been able to recreate using huge supercomputers. What guides the process in all living things is DNA, which regulates every cell of every plant and animal. The DNA molecule is like a tiny microprocessor that controls everything a living cell does. The data encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living thing is a kind of written language. The English language uses a twenty-six-letter alphabet; DNA uses a four-letter chemical alphabet. As the chemicals are arranged in various “lettered” sequences, they form what amounts to words, sentences, and paragraphs containing all the instructions needed to guide a living cell. The DNA molecule instructs cells on how to make proteins, what and how to eat, how to get rid of waste, when to divide, how to repair itself, and so on. So, where did DNA come from? How was the code “written?” Was it written by chance or was there a Designer?

British chemist Leslie Orgel once said, “Evolution is smarter than you are,” to which atheist Christopher Hitchens responded, “But this complement to the ‘intelligence’ of natural selection is not by any means a concession to the stupid notion of ‘intelligent design.’”

Why not? Why couldn’t evolution have an intelligence that was put in it by God? That Hitchens (along with the other neo-atheists) can make no “concession” to the possibility of God being involved is evidence of a silly prejudice. It is not a logical observation.

It appears any comments moratorium has been lifted. My commentary about evolution over at Dandavats.com finally got some love.

Here's the next in the series of conversations that David Jorm and I recorded on his recent visit to Brisbane. This one is about evolution and fundamentalism.

My earlier commentary on Evolutionary theory, posted here and as a comment on Dandavats garnered some response. On Facebook I got one comment and hooked up with one person who has a similar perspective, which is encouraging.

On Dandavats, however, there has been no response.

On another website, which shall remain nameless, a standard reply to no response is: "Your failure to rise to our challenge proves that we are right! Your silence is acceptance of your guilt! Why is no-one stepping forward to speak to this? Where are all the big leaders?"

But of course, the lack of a reply doesn't always mean that your logic is so tight, your arguments so on the money and irrefutable that everyone is cowering in the darkness, hiding from the light of righteousness shining from the torch you, the hero, are holding aloft. Sometimes it just means that you're a dick.

However, it's hard to tell whether the silence on Dandavats is because no-one who reads Dandavats thinks that the comment is worthy of a response, or because there is a dark conspiracy, lead by "elements within the leadership of ISKCON"*, to suppress all discussion of evolutionary theory by the membership of ISKCON.

The Dandavats' commentary censorship policy, undocumented officially but observed in action by several people, including myself, does lend itself to a juicy conspiratorial interpretation, complete with shadowy hooded figure tapping finger tips together and intoning: "Excellent!".

Several comments that people have made to me on Facebook point to such a conspiracy as well.

I'll leave you to discuss this amongst yourselves. If a source on the inside wants to give an anonymous tip off, leave a comment or send me an email.

I'll write Praghosa prabhu, the editor of Dandavats to see why my comment sank like a stone.

Meanwhile, check out this short clip that aired on ABC Counterpoint:

David Aaronovitch throws cold water on some of the more crazy ideas getting around and asks why have conspiracy theories become such a part of modern life? Are they just a bit of harmless fun or is there something more sinister and damaging about them?

- Conspiracy Theories - Counterpoint - 8 June 2009 (audio)

* I put "elements in the leadership of ISKCON" in quotes because for me the leadership of ISKCON rests with people who I find inspiring and whose example I emulate. In the interest of constructing an entertaining conspiracy narrative, however, here we are using the classic "the guys who control everything, like the ISKCON Illuminati" definition that is in common use.

I just left the following comment on Dandavats, on the post New Book Reveals Fundamental Flaw in Darwin’s Theory.

The comment is still in moderation, but it will be interesting what discussion it generates (aside from the predictable "this is illegal thinking!"). As you probably know, it's a topic I am quite interested in.

(Theologian and philosopher Connor) Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but he is also a Christian. He believes that the clash between Darwin and God has been hijacked by extremists - fundamentalist believers who reject evolution on one side, and fundamentalist atheists on the other. Cunningham attempts to overturn what he believes are widely held but mistaken assumptions in the debate between religion and evolution.

- from the BBC website

Please note that this program is divided into six videos on Youtube. Here are the other parts:

• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Part Five
• Part Six

Club New Vrndavan continue their campaign against Darwin and evolutionary theory (personally my campaign is against religious atheism, which I distinguish from those two). The latest installment is a review of the book "Nature's IQ". Here's an excerpt from a review on their site:

Darwin himself discovered the frog in Chile (Rhinoderma darwinii). After female Darwin’s frogs lay their eggs on wet beaches, males sense the scent of the eggs and fertilize them. They then station themselves beside the eggs in groups and guard them for about twenty days. When the developing eggs begin to move in their tiny, jelly-like globules, the males lean over to them and gulp—they seemingly eat them! Of course, they do not eat the eggs but instead place them with their tongue into their long expandable vocal pouch, situated in the lower part of ther body. The eggs continue to develop in the vocal pouch until one day the male suddenly yawns widely, and the fully developed baby frogs jump out of his mouth….

…For viable offspring to hatch, the frog father must know that he has to keep an eye on the eggs. Furthermore, he has to have the instincts commanding the right behavior: when the young are about to hatch, he has to get them into his specially structured vocal pouch. And when they are fully developed, he has to set them free. If any of these elements were missing, the frog’s reproduction would be unsuccessful. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Darwin’s frog and its special way of reproduction came into existence step by step, as a result of small changes….It is inconceivable that this frog species, with its specialized behavior, came into existence by a sudden large-scale mutation….The chance mutation of these genes causing a series of concerted, appropriate behaviors would be more than a miracle.

The (favorable) reviewer then goes on to say:

This excerpt provides one example of the methodology employed in analyzing and diffusing evolution theory in terms of reproduction and survival of offspring. Other sections cover predation, defense, symbiosis, animal communication, navigation, and mating behaviors.

Eeek. I hope it gets better than that.

In an evolutionary schema things do not spring forth fully formed. For example, take a look at the evolution of pop music. Pop music today utilizes various musical elements, and various intricate electronic elements. If you were to look at recorded music in the 1930's and that of the latter years of the first decade of the 21st century (that is to say: today), you'd see a great difference.

That didn't happen overnight. There are a series of innovations and gradual developments that lead from single microphone recordings of acoustic instruments to digital audio workstations, vocoders, and auto-tune.

So to imply that evolutionary theory requires all the elements of a complex arrangement to all become present simultaneously is disingenuous.

Obviously there is a difference between pop music and biological organisms, and I'm sure someone is going to pull out a comment about orders of magnitude, but my point here is related to evolutionary development and gradual appearance of increasing complexity.

A series of biological innovations can be postulated that would eventually lead to the particular combination of factors observed in these frogs. In fact, if you observe any system where the conscious living entity, the jiva, is in contact with and animating the material elements, you find all kinds of surprising, unexpected, and frankly wonderful arrangements developing over time.

I've heard evolutionary defenders explain their perspective on the development of the eye, another favorite "irreducibly complex" argument point of anti-evolutionists, and they have a coherent narrative in that area.

Of course, you may not be able to find all the intermediate steps in the fossil record, but as a theoretical exercise it's not a show-stopper.

That's not to say that a particular evolutionary narrative is "true". However, in the battle of theoretical narratives I do not find the argument that intricate complexity is not possible through evolutionary development to be particularly compelling.

JAPANESE researchers have genetically engineered monkeys whose hair roots, skin and blood glow green under a special light, and who have passed on their traits to their offspring, the first time this has been achieved in a primate.

They spliced a jellyfish gene into common marmosets, and said they hope to use their colony of glowing animals to study human Parkinson's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS.

Erika Sasaki and Hideyuki Okano of the Keio University School of Medicine in Japan used a virus to carry the gene for green fluorescent protein into monkey embryos, which were implanted into a female monkey, and four out of five were born with the gene throughout their bodies.

- Green-glowing monkeys pass on traits, news.com.au

Significant amounts of DNA in modern biological forms show evidence of having been integrated by viral infection. Retroviruses [wikipedia] uses reverse transcriptase [wikipedia] to become retrotransposons [wikipedia], integrating themselves into the DNA of the host organism. These so-called endogenous retroviruses [wikipedia] may play a key role in evolution.

The example of the green-glowing monkeys shows how a virus can integrate new information into the DNA of an existing life form. It doesn't answer questions such as: "What is life?" "Where does life come from?" "Where do all the material elements come from?" "What has determined the physical structure of this universe?" .

However, it does provide a mechanism to answer a question such as: "How can organisms increase in genetic complexity?"

"Cosmic radiation" is not the only, or even primary source of the "random mutation" required by the model of evolution through mutation and natural selection.

There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

By the way, from an evolutionary point of view Swine flu is the agent of natural selection and as such is the material cause of evolution of the species. So in this sense it occupies the role of the Deity of theists.

All glories to Swine flu.

Urmila devi dasi wrote me about my recent posts. She left comments on this blog here ["science"] and here ["Induction and Deduction"].

She also wrote me on a proprietary platform that is not accessible to non-members (facebook). I've extracted the conversation here to make it accessible to google indexing.

Urmila devi:

Haribol! I remember the wonderful time I had visiting your family. I've been reading/watching your blogs on evolution. You keep saying that there is evidence for genetic mutation and natural selection. Indeed no one doubts that both of these are real. But can you share the evidence for how these two things produce a new species, or a new useful and functional body part, etc.? I'm not familiar with even one piece of evidence in this regard and would be interested in what you have to share.

Sitapati das:
I think the underlying question you are asking is: "Why do people hold to a narrative where genetic mutation and natural selection produce new and functional body parts?"

If you read my blog posts carefully you will see that I make a distinction between the special theory of evolution, which is genetic mutation and natural selection, and the general theory of evolution, which is the development of new and very distinct species of a higher order of complexity from species of a lower order of complexity.

As I've stated, the special theory of evolution has some experimental evidence to verify it. As far as I am aware the general theory of evolution has no experimental evidence to verify it.

The strength and attraction of the general theory of evolution seems to be in the ability of its narrative to explain what we see in terms of known natural processes. It's more than explaining away a single creation event where the normal laws of nature are suspended - it accounts for the multiple extinction/repopulation events recorded in the fossil record.

That's not to say that it's "true", but as Thomas Kuhn points out, it takes a new paradigm, a framework that provides a superior fit with explaining observed phenomena and predicting as yet-unobserved ones, to overturn the previous one.

I got Michael Cremo's new book "Human Devolution" the other day. On the cover it promises a Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I am interested to see if it delivers on that promise.

Urmila devi:

Oops you're right that you do distinguish between micro and macro evolution or what you call special and general. But on at least one of your videos that's not clear. I like how you separate the two parts of evolution--1) life comes from chemicals and then 2) the first simple life form changes into all the varieties of past and current forms through processes that may include genetic mutation and isolation.

In my own preaching I note that while there is NO evidence for #2, this point is not intrinsically atheistic. Of course, most evolutionists say that this process is one of blind chance, which is an atheistic notion. Our main logical argument is with #1.

However, #2 is needed for #1 to even be remotely plausible. No one would believe that random material processes would create giraffes and oak trees directly from a "chemical soup."

I like that you are taking up this subject for preaching. Sometimes public blogs are a better place for finished work.

Sitapati das:
Try this: Arguing about Evolution update.

If you are interested this view gives you all the articles about evolution on my blog.