Science and Evolution: Four Christian Views

1
Science and EvolutionFour Christian Views

• JOHN OAKES, PhD
• Proyecto Esdras May 8, 2010

2
2010 ICEC Concordia University, Irvine CAJune
11-13

• International Christian Evidences Conference

Featured Speaker John Clayton
www.evidenceforchristianity.org joakes01_at_san.rr.co
m
3
Public ForumFour Christian Views of
EvolutionJune 12 70012/10 Students10
Goodyear, Irvine CA
Kevin Anderson
John Clayton
Young Earth Creationism
Denis Lamoreax
John Oakes
Intelligent Design
Progressive Creationism
Evolutionary Creationism
4
Our Outline

• Science and Religion The Limits of Science
• The History of Science and Christianity
• The Age of the Universe and the Age of the Earth
• Genesis 1 and Creation
• Evolution The Evidence
• Four Christian Views of Evolution

5
Science

• The use of experiment to test theories about the
  laws of nature.
• Science is about things which can be measured.

6
Science

• Scientific knowledge is quantitative
• Scientific knowledge changes and improves over
  time
• Scientific knowledge is neither true nor false,
  but rather consistent with the observations and
  consistent with prior knowledge

7
Religion

• Religion is a belief in something
• The belief is not necessarily substantiated by
  physical or material evidence
• Religious knowledge obtained through holy
  writings, authority, revelations
• Religious believers have faith or trust in such
  knowledge

8
Religion

• Religious knowledge is qualitative not
  quantitative.
• Religious knowledge is not gotten through
  measurement
• In religion knowledge is taken as either true or
  false.
• Religious knowledge is neither progressive, nor
  tentative.

9
Questions Science Can Answer

• When?
• What?
• Where?
• How many?
• By what means?

10
Questions Science Cannot Answer(That Religion
Does Answer)

• Why am I here?
• Is that the right thing to do?
• How valuable am I?
• Does God exist? Does God act (theism)?
• Will that God respond if I pray?
• Do supernatural events (miracles) happen?
• In other words, Religion answers the questions
  people actually care about!

11

• A statement a scientist should not make (if he or
  she is well trained and is not manipulating you)
• Evolution is true.
• The Big Bang happened.
• Better statements
• The theory of evolution is by far the best model
  we have to explain both the fossil evidence and
  the genetic evidence with regard to the origin of
  all species.
• The Big Bang model is in dramatic agreement will
  all known facts about the origin and history of
  the universe.
• Science seeks consistency, not truth. What is
  the simplest and most consistent explanation of
  the observation.

12
Conclusions about Science and Religion

• Religion and science ask different kinds of
  questions and define words differently
• Religion and science are two very different world
  views but at times they address the identical
  information area
• If Christianity is true, then the Bible should
  not contradict what we know from science.

13

• Unanswered questions which seem to relate to
  science
• Consciousness (what is consciousness and why are
  we conscious?)
• Origins of life
• Origin of the universe. Why is there anything
  (as opposed to nothing)
• Origin of Species (this is our topic)

14
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
The Bible was written to tell us how to go to
heaven, not how the heavens go In discussions
of physical problems we ought to begin not from
the authority of scriptural passages, but from
the sense-experiences and necessary
demonstrations.
15
Galileo on Revelation

• For the Holy Bible and the phenomena of nature
  proceed alike from the divine Word, the former as
  the dictate of the Holy Spirit and the latter as
  the observant executor of Gods commands.
• Is there such a thing as Natural
  Revelation/General Revelation? (as opposed to
  special revelation) In other words, can we
  gather genuine knowledge of God from looking at
  his creation?

16
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) The
Mechanical Universe Introduced idea of deism (an
uninvolved God)
17
LaPlace (1749-1827)
About God I have no need of that hypothesis
18
It is mere rubbish to think at this point of
the origin of life. One might as well think of
the origin of matter.
Charles Darwin Might the origin if species be
deisticgoverned by natural processes?
19
The Conservative Christian Reaction

• Scopes monkey trial 1925

Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan
20
1940s and afterward Young Earth Creationism
Movement Very Bad Science!
21
Can Science and Religion peacefully coexist?

• The Language of God
• Head of Genome Project
• Head of National Institutes of Health (NIH)

22
Reasons Collins believes in God

• 1. There is something instead of nothing.
• 2. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.
• 3. The Big Bang.
• 4. Nature does not solve the problem of why.
• 5. Fine tuning of the universe. The Goldilocks
  Paradox.
• 6. The existence of moral law.
• 7. Let me add The obvious inspiration of the
  Bible.

23
The Age of the Universe and the Age of the Earth

• Bishop Ussher 1640 The universe was created on
  Sunday October 23, 4004 BC

24
Cosmic Speedometer

• When a galaxy is receding, light waves travelling
  to us are red-shifted
• Hubble measured the spectrum of these galaxies
  and found the spectral lines to be red-shifted

• The faster the recession, the greater the
  red-shift

25
Galaxies islands of stars making up the universe
26
Hubble constant graphDistance vs. speed of
regression
27
Expansion of the Universe
winding backwards, the universe must have had
a beginning
28
Image of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
From COBE satellite red slightly warmer The
smoking gun of the Big Bang
29
Tests of the Big Bang Theory

• Expansion of the universe
• Cosmic microwave background
• Relative abundances of hydrogen, deuterium,
  helium and lithium

30
Obtaining the Age of the Universe

• Extrapolate the current expansion rate (Hubble
  constant) back to the Big Bang
• 13.5 billion years
• Look for the oldest stars (in globular clusters)
• 13.0 billion years old
• Best current estimate is 13.4 0.4 billion years

M10 Globular Cluster
31
How Old is the Earth?

• James Hutton, 1787 Uniformitarianism No
  vestige of a beginning, no concept of an end.

32
Deep Time
33
Index fossils give the relative age of a rock
34
Radiometric Dating Techniques
mother/daughter isotope pair half-life
U238 ? Pb206 4.5 billion years
U235 ? Pb207 704 million years
K40 ? Ar40 1.25 billion years
Th232 ? Pb208 14.8 billion years
35
Genesis Chapter One Creation

• Young Earth Theory
• Earth is young and science supports this
  conclusion.
• Earth is young because God created it with an
  appearance of age.
• Day/Age Theory
• Gap Theory
• A huge gap of time between Genesis 11 and 12
• Literary Theory
• Its all just a myth
• Each view has its problems

36
A Quick Summary of Genesis One

• a. God pre-existed the universe
• b. God created the universe Let there be
  light
• c. God created the earth
• d. God created life
• e. Last of all, God created mankind

37
A More Detailed Summary of Genesis OneFrom the
Viewpoint of an Observer on the Earth

• a. The earth created and is spinning night and
  day. Day 1
• b. Water covers earth, Very thick atmosphere
  forms. Day 2
• c. The earth cools, land appears out of the
  water. Day 3
• d. Life appears on the earth. Day 3
• e. (Photosynthetic life dramatically changes the
  chemistry of the atmosphere from reducing to
  oxidizing.)
• f. Finally, the heavenly objects appeared in the
  sky Day 4
• g. More advanced life forms first in the water,
  later on the land Day 5
• h. Even more advanced life forms. Last of all
  human beings Day 6
• Where is the scientific error in this?

38
Is Genesis 11 a Myth?

• Yes! It is a true myth.
• A myth is a simplified story, given to explain
  the gods (or God) to common people.

39
Is the Metaphorical Day a Reasonable
Interpretation?Pre-Science Theologians Who Said
Yes.

• Philo 1st century
• Origen early 3rd century
• Augustine early 5th century
• Thomas Aquinas 13th century

40
Evolution and the Bible

• What does the Bible say?
• God created all life in its various forms, but
  how did he do this? Remember, the Bible is not a
  science book.
• What does the physical evidence say?
• Fossil evidence
• Genetic/DNA evidence
• Is there Irreducible Complexity?
• What about human evolution?

41
(No Transcript)
42
Finches discovered And drawn by Charles
Darwin Evidence of Evolution?
43
Evolution of whales over time?
44
Evolution of horses?
45
Morphological Evidence of Common Descent
46
Human chromosome 2 and Great Ape chromosome
2p, 2q evidence for common descent.
47
More Genetic Evidence for Common Descent

• Pseudogenes
• Vitamin C Pseudogene in great apes and humans
• Retroposons, SINEs (short interspersed
  elements), etc.
• Viral insertions
• Bottom line, genetic evidence, at least in the
  big picture, strongly supports common descent.

48
table 1 Gene sequence thatcodes for protein Random DNA segmentbetween genes
Chimpanzee 100 98
Dog 99 52
Mouse 99 40
Chicken 75 4
Fruitfly 60 0
Roundworm 35 0
Typical random point mutation rates are about
1x10-5 1x10-7 mutations/generation. 5 million
years 250,000 generations. Sufficient for
random mutations to explain the change without
the intervention of a guiding hand?

49
But..

• The Cambrian Explosion
• Punctuated Equilibrium?
• Theistic Evolution

50
Fossils from creatures which appeared in the
Cambrian Explosion
51
Life in the Cambrian
52
(No Transcript)
53
Some Tentative Conclusions

• Evolution has happened. Microevolution has been
  observed.
• Fossil evidence strongly supports the idea of
  change over time, but that change often happens
  in surprisingly sudden bursts. The Cambrian
  explosion raises real questions.
• Genetic evidence gives rather strong support to
  the idea of common descent.
• Like it or not, this is true of humans as well.
• Statistical and other arguments give support for
  evolution being theistic, rather than deistic,
  but this is not a scientific argument.
• God invented evolution let us give him credit
  for a great idea.

54
Four Christian Views of Evolution

• Young Earth Creationism
• Scientific Young Earth
• Theological Young Earth
• Intelligent Design
• Theistic Evolution
• Evolutionary Creationism

55
Scientific Young Earth Creationism

• A scientific hypothesis that the earth is young
  and, for all practical purposes, evolution has
  not happened.
• The scientific young earth view rejects
  cosmology, geology and evolution. In effect, it
  rejects science altogether.
• It requires rejecting science and general
  revelation. (Galileo and geocentrism)
• This is not scientific. It is anti-scientific.
  Why? There is literally no evidence the earth is
  young.

56
Theological Young Earth Creationism

• A purely theological hypothesis that God created
  the earth with an appearance of age.
• Rejects cosmology, geology and evolution, but not
  science in general because the rejection is
  theological, not scientific.
• This view is NOT anti-scientific.
• How old was the wine Jesus created?
• Rejects general revelation?
• As a theological view, it is possible, but
  problematic. Is God tricking us?

57
Young Earth Summary

• Scientific Young Earth Creationism is VERY bad
  science.
• Theological Young Earth Creationism is not bad
  science, but it raises difficult theological
  questions.

58
Intelligent Design (ID)/Progressive Creationism

• Accepts Cosmology
• Accepts Geology
• Rejects Evolution? Rejects macroevolution.
  Rejects common descent. Skeptical of evolution.
  Argues for irreducible complexity.
• Uses God-of-the-gaps arguments
• Note God-of-the-gaps arguments are NOT
  scientific (even if they are true!).
• Tends to confuse theological issues with
  scientific ones.
• Carries baggage from predestination/Calvinism?
• I agree with the theology of ID, but am hesitant
  about the science of ID. There is a sense in
  which it is not scientific.

59
Theistic Evolution

• Accepts cosmology, geology and evolution as
  scientific hypothesis.
• Accepts common descent as a good scientific
  (note, scientific) hypothesis.
• Sees both free will and Gods sovereign will in
  history, in individuals and in nature.
• God works through evolution, but he directs the
  path, either by subtly directing it or by
  dramatic intervention.
• Although some scientific evidence and even
  statistical arguments support this conclusion it
  is a purely theological hypothesis.

60
Theistic Evolution (cont.)

• Gods relationship with history is theistic, but
  with free will.
• Gods relationship with us is theistic, but with
  free will.
• Gods relationship with nature is theistic, but
  with free will.
• God gives us free will, in that choosing to
  reject God is not completely unreasonable. God
  uses nature to support our faith but not to
  demand it.
• Although the evidence supports evolution of human
  beings, Adam and Eve were special creations.
• John the Baptist Out of these stones, God can
  raise up children of Abraham.
• The fish Jesus created had retroposons,
  pseudogenes and viral insertions.

61
Evolutionary Creationism

• Accepts cosmology, geology and evolution.
• Accepts common descent as both a scientific and a
  theological hypothesis.
• Evolution was a purely natural, undirected
  process.
• God is the designer, who, in his incredible
  wisdom and foreknowledge, set the universe and
  evolution in motion.
• Hypothesizes a God-of-no-gaps.
• If God had to intervene in the free process of
  evolution, that would be to lessen Goda God who
  had to correct his mistakes.

62
Evolutionary Creationism

• Adam and Eve are not real persons. They are
  symbolic. The human soul and spirit evolved,
  along with our intelligence and other abilities.
• Accepts the literary view of Genesis 1-3.
• The Bible has incorrect science because God
  accommodates our primitive understanding.
• Gods relationship with history is theistic, but
  with free will.
• Gods relationship with us is theistic, but with
  free will.
• Gods relationship with nature is deistic. God
  does not intervene.
• Good science, but questionable theology.

63
Summary

• There is no view without any problems, either
  logical, scientific or theological.
• Obviously, I prefer the position described as
  Theological Evolution, but I may be wrong.
• This is not a salvation issue. We should be
  tolerant of divergent views on unimportant
  doctrines. (Titus 39)
• All agree that we are fearfully and wonderfully
  made. that all Gods works are wonderful (Psalm
  13914)