This is the fifth part in the series on science. Here are the other parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Bibliography.
Doesn’t the fossil record prove Darwinism? Well, no. It is difficult to imagine how it actually could. I’m going to appeal simply to those who would know better about this subject than myself. Those being the likes of William Dembski and Jonathan Wells. Here is the article I’m quoting and using:
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/why_fossils_can/
1. Scientist and philosophers of science have stated that they think their evolutionary contemporaries are guilty of selective use of the fossil record. Dembski and Wells use therapsids to demonstrate this point. Those are fossils that are more mammal-like and they can occur earlier than non-mammal like creatures. That’s backward from the evolutionary hypothesis. That is because therapsids are supposed to be a transitional fossil between mammals and reptiles. The problem is that they don’t demonstrate clear graduation. Here Dembski and Wells state:
Yet to trace an evolutionary lineage on the basis of the fossil record requires that therapsids structurally more similar to mammals enter the history of life later than those that are structurally less similar. Evolution, after all, needs to follow time’s arrow and cannot have offspring giving birth to parents.
Wells and Dembski speak of another problem that arises in evolutionary theory because of geographical (temporal) mismatches. Which is when fossil organisms that are supposedly next to each other in a structural progression are widely separated geographically. If the geographical separation is too great, then how can one organism be ancestral to the other? Reproduction just so happens to require proximity, parents do not give birth to offspring on the other side of the planet.
The problem of temporal and geographical mismatches is widespread. The Darwinist’s way around this problem is to assume that organisms that appear to enter the fossil record too late or too far away actually entered earlier or closer together. But such assumptions are entirely ad hoc and ignore the actual fossil evidence.
2. Common descent isn’t the only possible explanation of similarity. The issue is that we know from underdetermination that we have an infinite amount of possible theories. The one that a Christian will prefer is one that comports with his presuppositions. In the Dembski-Wells article, they appeal to a 1990s book written to refute critics of Neo-Darwinian evolution, a biologist Tim Berra used pictures of various models of Corvettes to illustrate how the fossil record provides evidence for descent with modification. The argument for common ancestry also has a unique comparison with language. We have seen that the secular establishment has had quite a difficulty with the goals, methods, and foundations of science. Steve Hays’ comments on Dr. Todd Wood’s video
If you compare two texts in same language, they will share many similarities. Is that because they have a common ancestor? Generally, that’s not the explanation.
The reason, rather, is that a language has limited characters (alphabet) and limited vocabulary. Likewise, it has a standard syntax. As a result, two texts have many repeated words and grammatical forms.
If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side …. then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.” But cars are designed, not descended from other vehicles. Berra actually proved the opposite of what he intended. That a series of similarities could be a product of intelligent design rather than Neo-Darwinian evolution.
In the theory of common descent, convergence refers to the origination of identical or highly similar structures through independent evolutionary pathways rather than inheritance from a common ancestor. Darwinian theory attributes convergence to similar environments that apply similar selection pressures and thereby produce similar structures.This explanation, on its face, is implausible because there is no reason to think that the Neo-Darwinian opportunistic mechanism has the fine discrimination to produce virtually identical complex structures in causally disconnected environments. Yet organisms possess many similar features not thought to arise from a common ancestor. Convergence is a widespread fact. As a result, even if Neo-Darwinian theory were true, one could never be sure whether similar features shared by two fossils resulted from convergence or from common ancestry. If similar structures can evolve and re-evolve repeatedly, then fossils cannot distinguish convergence from common ancestry, and tracing evolutionary lineages in the fossil record becomes impossible.-Dembski and Wells
3. The fossil record is and of itself is open to many different interpretations. It could be anything from naturalistic interpretations, Theistic evolutionary interpretations, intelligent design interpretations, old earth interpretations, young earth interpretation, and so forth.
The case for Darwinian evolution would be greatly strengthened if scientists could demonstrate (rather than merely gesture at) a plausible mechanism for producing macroevolution. But they have been unable to do so. Even if we assume that a structural progression such as the therapsid-to-mammal sequence is an evolutionary lineage, the fact remains that we know of no material mechanism capable of producing it. … Take the evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw. How exactly did those two bones from the reptilian jaw “migrate” to the mammalian ear? The word “migrate” in this context is empty of scientific content. What genetic changes and selection pressures were in fact operating, and how, specifically, did they bring about the evolutionary pathway in question? No such details are known. Yet, without such details, there is no way to assess whether the Darwinian mechanism was even capable of, much less responsible for, evolving the mammalian ear.”
3.Fossils cannot establish biological relationships. “Imagine finding two human skeletons in the same location, one apparently about thirty years older than the other. Was the older individual the parent of the younger? Simply by looking at the skeletons, one can’t say. Without independent evidence (e.g., genealogical, dental, or molecular), it is impossible to answer the question. Yet in this case, we’re dealing with two skeletons from the same species that are only a generation apart. It follows that even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate between, say, reptiles and mammals — if there were no missing links whatsoever — it would still be impossible, in principle, to establish ancestor-descendant relationships. In 1978, fossil expert Gareth Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Henry Gee, a science writer for Nature, doesn’t doubt Darwinian evolution, but he likewise admits that we can’t infer descent with modification from fossils. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate,” he wrote in 1999. “That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way.” According to Gee, we call new fossil discoveries missing links “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” He concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
·Abiogenesis
A great difficulty exists in biology in explaining the origin of life. It has led to a massive amount of debate and discussion to the topic. The reason is that these issues seem to be a bit of a paradox. As Robert Service wrote:
The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes. In order for life to have gotten started, there must have been a genetic molecule—something like DNA or RNA—capable of passing along blueprints for making proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. But modern cells can’t copy DNA and RNA without the help of proteins themselves. To make matters more vexing, none of these molecules can do their jobs without fatty lipids, which provide the membranes that cells need to hold their contents inside. And in yet another chicken-and-egg complication, protein-based enzymes (encoded by genetic molecules) are needed to synthesize lipids.
That is a difficult issue, but what is the probability that the origin of biological life arose by chance? Dr. Stephen Meyers wrote this:
Axe’s improved estimate of how rare functional proteins are within “sequence space” has now made it possible to calculate the probability that a 150-amino-acid compound assembled by random interactions in a prebiotic soup would be a functional protein. This calculation can be made by multiplying the three independent probabilities by one another: the probability of incorporating only peptide bonds (1 in 1045), the probability of incorporating only left-handed amino acids (1 in 1045), and the probability of achieving correct amino-acid sequencing (using Axe’s 1 in 1074 estimate). Making that calculation (multiplying the separate probabilities by adding their exponents: 1045 + 45 + 74) gives a dramatic answer. The odds of getting even one functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance from a prebiotic soup is no better than 1 chance in 10164. It is almost impossible to convey what this number represents, but let me try. We have a colloquial expression in English, “That’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.” We understand from this expression that finding the needle will be difficult because the needle—the thing we want—is mixed in with a great number of other things we don’t want. To have a realistic chance of finding the needle, we will need to search for a long, long time. Now consider that there are only 1080 protons, neutrons, and electrons in the observable universe. Thus, if the odds of finding a functional protein by chance on the first attempt had been 1 in 1080, we could have said that’s like finding a marked particle—proton, neutron, or electron (a much smaller needle)—among all the particles in the universe (a much larger haystack). Unfortunately, the problem is much worse than that. With odds standing at 1 chance in 10164 of finding a functional protein among the possible 150-amino-acid compounds, the probability is 84 orders of magnitude (or powers of ten) smaller than the probability of finding the marked particle in the whole universe. Another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specified particle among all the particles in the universe. And the problem is even worse than this for at least two reasons. First, Axe’s experiments calculated the odds of finding a relatively short protein by chance alone. More typical proteins have hundreds of amino acids, and in many cases their function requires close association with other protein chains. For example, the typical RNA polymerase—the large molecular machine the cell uses to copy genetic information during transcription (discussed in Chapter 5)—has over 3,000 functionally specified amino acids.18 The probability of producing such a protein and many other necessary proteins by chance would be far smaller than the odds of producing a 150-amino-acid protein. Second, as discussed, a minimally complex cell would require many more proteins than just one. Taking this into account only causes the improbability of generating the necessary proteins by chance—or the genetic information to produce them—to balloon beyond comprehension. In 1983 distinguished British cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one-celled organism by chance at 1 in 1040,000.19 At that time scientists could have questioned his figure. Scientists knew how long proteins were and roughly how many protein types there were in simple cells. But since the amount of functionally specified information in each protein had not yet been measured, probability calculations like Hoyle’s required some guesswork. Axe’s experimental findings suggest that Hoyle’s guesses were pretty good. If we assume that a minimally complex cell needs at least 250 proteins of, on average, 150 amino acids and that the probability of producing just one such protein is 1 in 10164 as calculated above, then the probability of producing all the necessary proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell is 1 in 10164 multiplied by itself 250 times, or 1 in 1041,000. This kind of number allows a great amount of quibbling about the accuracy of various estimates without altering the conclusion. The probability of producing the proteins necessary to build a minimally complex cell—or the genetic information necessary to produce those proteins—by chance is unimaginably small.
~Stephen C. Meyer. Signature in the Cell (Kindle Locations 3355-3391). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Faith vs Reason
I find that the liberal views on science come from a strange view of how we look at religion and, subtlety, of it being derogatory, compared to a worldview based on reason. “You can have a religion based on faith, but don’t bring that into science!”
That mentality is quite popular that religion is subject to only blind faith and science is subject to truth. That leaves us with an old but less popular question of “What is the relationship of Faith and Reason?” Philosophers and theologians have disagreed about such. This will be a very simple glossing over of some ideas that float around:
1.Thomistic view:
We have truths that come from reason and truths that come by faith (this is not the doctrine of Twofold truth). We can know principles of logic by reason. Transubstantiation we know by faith. We can know that God exists by reason, but, to get you to the Christian God, you’ll need faith. This view is what natural theology is tied to.
2. Separation view:
This is the belief that faith and reason aren’t related. This view holds that religion and philosophy, as separate sources of knowledge, might arrive at contradictory truths, without detriment to either (Twofold Truth). Tertullian is the best to quote on his own view: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” You have your faith in its own sphere and reason in the other. “Credo quia absurdum” is Latin for “I believe because it is absurd,” and it is a paraphrase of a statement from Tertullian’s work De Carne Christi (ca. 203-206). “Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est”, which can be translated: “it is, by all means, to be believed because it is absurd.” (Philosophers and Theologians that held to this view are Karl Barth, Soren Kierkegaard, Averroes, The traditional reading of Immanuel Kant, etc.)
3.Rationalist view:
John Locke had the view that he could make faith reasonable. Which means reason underlies faith. This, unfortunately, has those caught up in their own autonomous reason, over what’s revealed in scripture.
4. Augustinian view:
Augustine’s view of faith and reason is presented in his view of epistemology that can be summed up by this Latin saying “Credo ut intelligam” or “I believe so that I may understand.” He believed we must have faith in order to have knowledge. That knowledge itself is based on underlying faith. So, faith is foundational to reason in his view.
The Thomistic view has the issues with reason (Which will be explained in the John Locke position). We do know things through reason and not directly through the Bible, but, ultimately, knowledge comes from the Bible. We know Christ, “in whom are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge” Colossians 2:3.
The second view isn’t very interesting. For example, on this view, one could affirm that Jesus rose from the dead in the sphere of faith but not in the sphere of reason. It would mean he rose from the dead but not in a real historical event, while still rising from the dead in another historical sense. It makes a subjective realm of truth that is apart from reason (it in no way is consistent with the Apostolic proclamation). Faith would make no objective claim on reality and, therefore, has no basis for accepting it.
The third view is if you say the reason is fundamental and you build off of that faith.The first issue is that it could lead to an infinite regression. That is because each belief would need to have a justification. If I justify claim C on the basis of justification X, then X is either grounded in faith or in reason. Well, each belief must be grounded in reason. So, it would be justified on the basis of X1, but what would justify X1? The second problem is that not everyone has a basis for what they believe. Second, many Christians aren’t intelligent enough to build a case for Christianity. The third problem is that I’m going to ask you which system of reason? There are many different systems of logic. If you pick one, I’ll ask why that one or how do you know that it is true? If you use that system to answer that, you beg the question, and if you appeal to another system, you’ll have to justify that system. However, by doing so, you contradict yourself, by choosing one system and using another to justify it. You see, we have this problem with principles of logic. I recommend you recall what Bahnsen said about the bias of reason. It turns out this view really reduces to faith underlying faith.
“Strictly speaking, the law of non-contradiction cannot be proved. The reason is simple. Any argument offered as proof for the law of non-contradiction would of necessity have to assume the law as part of the proof. Hence, any direct proof of the law would end up being circular. It would beg the question.” Dr.Ronald Nash
Do not forget all these beliefs have metaphysical commitments, as I mentioned earlier.
Lastly, the Augustinian view is the one that captures our epistemic status. We cannot prove our principles of reason by using reason nor can we prove our senses are reliable by empirical data. Each method would beg the question, and we must, therefore, believe these things in order to know.
“1. The true wisdom of man consists in the Knowledge of God The Creator and Redeemer. 2. This knowledge dwells in us naturally, and the end of it ought to be the worship of God rightly performed, or reverence for the deity accompanied by fear and love.” John Calvin
I find it strange that people would allow faith to justify themselves in the presence of God but not in the presence of their scientific colleagues. Worldviews, to me, are always faith-based systems. Religions are just theistic ones. That does not mean each worldview is the same, but in the structure they are. They have an ultimate authority that dictates what the individual can believe.
The Council 