Evolution and LSU

[Gregory Matthews]

I think it would be well to review some basic aspects of evoluiton if we are going to discussion LSU and the claim that certain memberes of the Biology facultly are teaching evolution in violation of SDA teaching and doctrine.

Introduction: John McLarty once published an editorial in Adventist Today on evolution in which he gave four different aspects of evolution. Certain of those four aspects fell within a framework that many creationists could accept. As such they explained why people could make statements such as the following: “I am an evolutionary biologist who believes that God created the earth.” Other aspects of evolution fell outside of the framework that creationists could accept.

As I reflected on that article I came to see it as very valuable. Unfortunately I lost track of that editorial and was no longer able to review it. At a later time I came across an article in the September 2005 issue of Ministry. The article was written by Ronald L. Carter, Dean of the School of Science and Technology, at Loma Linda University and entitled “Should Adventists consider evolution?” That article contained the same basis descriptions of evolution that I recall being in McLarty’s editorial.

This paper is indebted to Carter’s article. In this paper it may not be clear as to where I am making my own comments and when I am following the thinking of Dr. Carter. If you can review his article, please do so.

The several aspects of evolution: Dr. Carter states that evolution has four distinct meanings. It is a:

Process: The fundamental issue here is that genetic change takes place and that such change is passed down from generation to generation. This has been well documented by science and it is accepted by informed creationists.

Mechanism: According to Dr. Carter, there are five parts to the mechanism of evolution:

1) Living organisms produce organisms that are similar to the parent organism.

2) These offspring, while similar to the parent organism, exhibit variation due to genetic differences with the parent organism.

3) These offspring have a great potential to reproduce, but usually reproduce in balance with nature.

4) Due to environmental issues, some of these offspring do not survive.

5) Offspring that are produced in the greatest numbers and those that survive in the greatest numbers are described as most fit.

Again, the listed aspects of the mechanism of evolution are typically accepted by creationists, even though the basic core of Darwin’s evolutionary theory is found in the process and mechanism as listed above. From this perspective, a creationist could say: “I am an evolutionist who believes that God created the earth and the life that lives on it.”

Theory: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the world that allows one to obtain insight as to that aspect and to apply it to the world of the past and/or the present. It may be substantially inferential and speculative.

Contrary to what some might think there is more than one theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory may be the most accepted theory of evolution. Yet, his theory has been modified over time and is not the same as Darwin first proposed. In one sense, this is the nature of science. Proposed theories are subject to revision and modification.

There are evolutionary theories that explain life as originating outside of this planet, while others speculate that it began on the Earth. The proposed mechanisms are not the same for all theories. In some there will be random events. In others the events will not be random. Some are grounded in Darwinian Theory and others diverge.

Creationists disagree as to whether or not any evolutionary theory can be accepted by a creationist. People exist on both sides of this question. Some evolutionary theory allows for a God with some level of participation in a creation. Other theories do not allow for such participation.

Philosophy: In its simplest form, evolutionary philosophy tells us that the world in which we live today must be explainable by the methods of science and by the mechanisms that we find taking place in our world today. God is not important in evolutionary philosophy. As such, it is in direct conflict with a creationist explanation that postulates a God very active in creation. This does not mean that evolution is in direct conflict with God. It simply means that the existence of God is not relevant to evolution.

Macroevolution and microevolution: Dr. Carter discusses the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” in a manner new to me. Therefore, I am more indebted to his thinking on this point that I am in the preceding parts of this post.

Microevolution is commonly used by creationists to describe genetic changes that are considered to fall safely within a creationist viewpoint. In the world of science it is used to describe genetic changes that are below the formation of new species.

Macroevolution is commonly used by creationists to describe changes in life-form that fall outside of what can be included in a creationist viewpoint. In science the term may have more than one meaning. Biologists use it to reference the formation of new species. Paleontologists use it to describe major changes in structure that require long periods of time and lead to the formation of new classification groups.

Dr. Carter recommends that creationists cease using the term “macroevolution” as it is confusing to informed people. Such usage implies to them that creationists reject the formation of new species. It is this perception that Dr. Carter believes is behind intense antagonism applied to creationists. It presents creationists to the world as people who are simply scientifically illiterate. The reality is that most creationists acknowledge that new species can come into existence just as they can go out of existence.

Evolutionary strengths: Dr. Carter considers evolution to have some strength which must be recognized. Again, this post follows very closely what he says in his article.

• Evolution appeals to reason, is honest, open and self-correcting.

• It helps us to understand the world in which we live.

• The mechanisms of microevolution may be observed in patterns that correlate to ecological barriers.

• Living organisms are distributed close to their fossil ancestors.

• Speciation has occurred in patterns that correlate to ecological barriers.

• Living organisms are distributed close to their fossil ancestors.

• Evolution does have fossil transitional forms.

• Evolution accounts for vestigial forms that exist in animals.

• DNA sequences show common descent.

Creationists may argue with some of the above. They may object that evolution is not open. They might argue as to the meaning of vestigial forms in animal life. They will likely dispute the meaning of DNA sequences. Yet, Dr. Carter had correctly identified some of the major strengths of evolution. Creationists who oppose those strengths will need to work very hard to challenge them.

Evolutionary Weaknesses: In the final section of his article, Dr. Carter lists what he considers to be major weaknesses of evolution. Again, I am following very closely to what he said in the article.

• The “a priori” assumption that all life is related to a common ancestor limits the theories that can be seriously considered.

• Evolutionary relationships are historical in nature and cannot be either confirmed or challenged by scientific methods.

• In the paleontological sense, macroevolution is based upon partial or missing data such as the absence of soft tissue for DNA analysis.

• Many evolutionary explanations cannot be scientifically tested.

• Fossil transitions are often inconsistent and contradictory.

• Theories of origin are poorly supported by observation and experiment.

• The theory of natural selection does not provide us with good explanations of the development of complex structures.

• Evolutionary theories are related to politics and bias.

• Many people have accepted evolutionary theory as dogma.

• Some current evolutionary theory attempts to explain the “why” as well as the “how.” Philosophically this is a major weakness.

In this paper I have condensed and abridged (as well as commented upon) what was written in a four page article. I urge those who can obtain a copy of the article to do so. It will fill you in on details that I have left out.

___________________________

i The first edition of this paper was posted July 8, 2006 on the Internet forum commonly known as Club Adventist.

ii At the same time I am clearly indebted to McLarty for his contribution to my thinking along these lines.

iii In another paper which I am writing I discuss in greater detail some basis presuppositions of science and their relationship to evolution and creationism.

iv While I have called evolution a theory I clearly believe that there are aspects of evolution that are an established fact. But, other aspects may be properly called a theory as they are not clearly established and in these aspects there may be alternative theories.

v Some creationists like to point out differences that exist in regard to some aspects of evolutionary theory. However, creationists are possibly more divided in their beliefs than the evolutionists are divided in what they believe.

vi One of the problems that creationists face is that they often present themselves as being quite ignorant of basic issues and facts. As part of this they attempt to defend positions that cannot be defended.

vii I consider another weakness to be that evolutionists often misrepresent what informed creationists believe. In other words, they reject creationism on the basis of misinformation regarding creationist positions. But, this is no worse than what creationists do. As such it is illustrated that the emotional context of this subject is so high that many do not really understand the other side.

[Gregory Matthews]

As you comment on what LSU is alleged to be teaching it may be well to identify with the above what is being taught as well as what you believe is acceptable in the SDA doctrinal framework and what is not.

[karl]

Quote:

• In the paleontological sense, macroevolution is based upon partial or missing data such as the absence of soft tissue for DNA analysis.

• Many evolutionary explanations cannot be scientifically tested.

• Fossil transitions are often inconsistent and contradictory.

• Theories of origin are poorly supported by observation and experiment.

• The theory of natural selection does not provide us with good explanations of the development of complex structures.

What he fails to note is that these are HUGE hurdles for the theory of evolution (or they should be - it seems some people will believe just about anything.)

Also, please note that "missing data" is an oxymoron except maybe in the "Climategate" sense. Hypothetical "evidence" that has NOT been observed in favor of evolution is NOT data. It is not even zero. It is a peeled zero. It is nothing at all. It is a glaring gap which SHOULD relegate the theory back to a hypothesis but doesn't because the FAITH of the scientists wanting evolution to be true is so strong.

The "theory" of evolution is very murky. It is very lacking in the qualities and quantities which are characteristic of truly scientific theories.

For more on this, and on the overall pretension of scientists in their attack on religion, see David Berlinski's book, "The Devil's Delusion." It is great fun to read this book. Written by an areligious philosopher, it is not so much pro-religion as it is opposed to the pompous pronouncements of scientists who think they've got things figured out.