1 – This version explains the scientific ramifications of evolution.
2 – This version explains both scientific and theological ramifications of evolution.
How did we get here?
Was it evolution? Did unicellular life branch out over time to produce complex organisms such as astronauts?
Was it creation? Did a supernatural deity create?
Maybe it was theistic evolution? Did a supernatural deity initiate evolution which in turn produced astronauts?
Creationists and evolutionists will never agree, so is theistic evolution the happy medium?
BioLogos is an organization that is a proponent of theistic evolution and describes it as: “The belief that God used the process of evolution to create living things, including humans.”
How does this line up with evolutionary thought?
Darwin stated that life’s “elaborately constructed forms… have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University… Edward O. Wilson stated… Evolution “in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose.”
Author and professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Irvine… Francisco J. Ayala describes evolution as having no “need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.”
Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and author of WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE, Jerry A. Coyne communicated that “if you accept even a little bit of divine tinkering in the evolutionary process, you’re not standing on some inclusive middle ground- you are as P Z Myers said, halfway to crazy town.
Theistic evolution is the idea that a supernatural deity initiated the natural process of evolution. Which suggests that evolution is in part supernatural.
According to biologists, Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection is just that… NATURAL.
The scientific community discounts the idea of theistic evolution, but does theistic evolution find support from Judeo-Christian theology?
From Genesis to Revelation, there is one overarching theme… Redemption for all mankind… but why?
According to the Bible, mankind was created by God to never die and to live without sin in order to be intimately connected with God.
God gave a very clear command to not eat from the tree of knowledge, of good and evil.
Adam and his wife chose, the sin of disobedience.
God banished the unhappy couple from the Garden of Eden to restrict access to the Tree of Life.
Now being mortal and living in the presence of sin, relations with God became disconnected.
Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all people.
They had children… their children had children… of whom were born sinners just like all people today.
Prophets foretold of a Messiah that would take away the sins of the world, redeeming mankind’s broken connection with God. Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled these prophecies and affirmed the overarching theme of redemption from the Fall.
Proponents of theistic evolution do not see a conflict between Darwinian thought and Judeo-Christian faith. Yet, evolution predicts new species to emerge among groups of organisms, and most definitely not to emerge within one generation. This causes a major problem with how theistic evolution views Adam, the first man.
How does theistic evolution affect the doctrine of original sin and the need for a savior?
BioLogos has predicted the entrance of sin into the world with two potential scenarios:
First, Genesis 3 could be symbolic meaning that Adam never actually existed,
Second, Adam & Eve could refer to a real couple that were seen as leaders in the early human population. God could have revealed himself to them, gave his first commands, and they chose rebellion.
Both theistic evolutionary predictions are invalid for the following reasons:
First, Adam & Eve cannot be seen as symbolic because many scriptures reference the couple including Jesus Christ himself.
Second, Messianic redemption is only necessary if a connection with God has been broken by sin. If Adam & Eve were chosen out of an existing population, the remaining members and their offspring alive today were never given a command by God, of which was never disobeyed, therefore this group never experienced sin. Are there people alive today that do not need a Redeemer?
The answer to this question is a resounding no. Romans 3:23 states that “all have sinned.” BioLogos suggests that family groups in this early population that are not direct descendants of Adam could have acquired sin through social interaction and learned behavior. Yet, this would suggest some peripheral groups to have never come in contact with sin due to lack of social interaction. It also suggests that humans could become sinlessness on their own via social interaction, yet the scriptures are very clear in stating that no one is righteous and that we are sinful from the point of conception.
Theistic evolution and the Bible only fit together when certain verses are cherry-picked and ignored. Theistic evolution is in direct conflict with Judeo-Christian theology and nothing close to being an accurate representation of biological evolution.
Evolutionists claim to subscribe to Darwinian ideas because of science, but what is science?
The National Academy of Sciences describes science as two fold.
First, there is a “formulation of a conjecture or hypothesis about the natural world.”
Second, there is a “testing of the hypothesis by ascertaining whether deductions derived from the hypothesis are indeed the case in the real world.”
In essence, science deals with the tangible world of naturally occurring phenomena that can be observed and tested.
If evolution is scientific, then it must be a naturally occurring phenomena that can be observed and tested, but what is evolution?
Unfortunately, the National Academy of Sciences does not have a concise and scientifically agreed definition of evolution.
Our federally funded, curricula-framework called The Next Generation Science Standards requires evolution to be taught in public school, but has also failed to produce a definition.
Major court cases dealing with evolution have also failed to produce a scientifically agreed upon definition.
…And most shockingly, Charles Darwin himself did not give a concise definition of evolution “in” his book Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, but the title does a good job of telling us what he thought evolution to be. According to Darwin, species originate by means of natural selection. So, in essence, evolution is: natural selection causing species to emerge.
Can Darwin’s hypothesis be tested? Does natural selection cause new species to come into existence? If so, what can be learned from the field of genetics?
Deoxyribonucleic Acid, known as DNA is the blueprint for all living things. Information is stored in the rung-like pegs that connect the double helix. Each half of the rung is a molecule and when it is paired with another half rung, they become what is called a “base pair.” These base pairs are much like the ones and zeros of a computer program and they determine what kind of organism can be built. We humans have 3.2 billion base pairs in our genome.
How does this information line up with evolutionary thought? Darwin sketched a Tree of Life very similar to this one. He placed simple organisms at the trunk and we “complex, higher thinking organisms” way up at the top. Of course, organisms like flowers and fish are placed in the middle based on their level of complexity.
If evolution is true we can infer our 3.2 billion base pairs as most complex, and we should observe a decrease of base pairs in organisms as we travel toward the trunk of the tree. Which makes a lot of sense until the real data surrounding an organism’s genome is studied. We humans have 3.2 billion base pairs. This puffer fish has 390 million. Yet, a flower that has no brain and no mobility has 150 billion base pairs. And this single celled organism, has a genome with 670 billion base pairs, making it 200 times bigger than our genome! Nothing about Darwin’s Tree of Life makes sense in the light of real data. When it comes to genetics, evolution can not be observed, tested, replicated, nor verified. So what about the fossil record?
Paleontologists have discovered only two kinds of fossils:
Extinct organisms like dinosaurs… and… Extant organisms that are still alive today, like the birds and the bees.
Biologists have also discovered two things:
Some specie are thriving… and… Some species are going extinct.
Environmental pressures and habitat fragmentation have caused populations to “bottleneck,” which is a decrease in numbers leading to an inbreeding depression and low genetic variation. Rates of stillborn and deformed offspring increase, causing extinction. According to Endangered Species International, approximately 500 species went extinct in the 20th century.
How does this data line up with evolutionary thought?
Evolution proposes that species emerge into existence due to environmental pressures, bottlenecking, and allopatric speciation otherwise known as habitat fragmentation. Yet, these are the very same observable mechanisms that are causing species to go extinct today. Why would they have caused the exact opposite in the unobservable past? The evolutionary claim of new species emerging into existence is contrary to what is scientifically observed.
Species are not increasing. Species are going extinct.
When it comes real data that can be collected today, the idea that evolution produces new and unique species cannot be observed, tested, replicated, nor verified.
In fact, experts in the field of evolutionary biology agree:
Edward O. Wilson described each species as being “a masterpiece of evolution that humanity could not possibly duplicate even if we somehow accomplish the creation of new organisms by genetic engineering.”
Jerry A. Coyne suggested a “better title for The Origin of Species… would have been The Origin of Adaptations: while Darwin did figure out how and why a single species changes over time (largely by natural selection), he never explained how one species splits in two.”
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins boldly stated that he will “show the irrefragable power of the inference that evolution is a fact,” yet quickly backpedaled by saying that, “Obviously, the vast majority of evolutionary change is invisible to direct eye-witness observation.”
These evolutionists are not unique in their understanding of Darwinian thinking. It is quite clear that the idea of evolution is based upon inferences that cannot be observed, tested, replicated, nor verified. No one has ever been able to produce empirical data that scientifically validates the emergence of species by means of natural selection.
In fact, the National Science Teachers Association has clearly communicated there is debate “about how evolution has taken place,” and has asked the question of, “What are the processes and mechanisms?”
The fact that biological evolution cannot be observed, tested, replicated, nor verified, and the fact that biologists do not scientifically understand “how” evolution takes place, it puts Darwin’s hypothesis in a legal predicament.
The 1981 court case Segraves versus the State of California concluded that scientific explanations must pertain to the “how” and do not pertain to an “ultimate cause.”
In the 2005 Supreme Court case Kitzmiller versus the Dover area school district, Professor Biology at Michigan State University, Robert T. Pennock stated that as a science-focused community we must “seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.” Ultimately, this case showed Intelligent Design (otherwise known as Creationism) to be unfit for the public classroom on the basis of it not being able to be scientifically observed, tested, replicated, nor verified.
According to legal precedent, the United States judicial system has outlined a standard of what can and cannot be taught in the public classroom. This standard must be consistent with all topics in science education including evolution.
Due to the fact that biologist cannot explain the “how” of evolution and its main result is unable to be observed, tested, replicated, and verified… Like Intelligent Design (otherwise known as Creationism), Darwinian evolution cannot fulfill the criteria of what can be legally taught in the public science classroom.
Subscribers of evolutionary thought believe that somehow, and given millions of years, new species emerged. Yet, if the core aspect of evolution cannot be observed and is included in the required curriculum, our civil liberties are being infringed upon.
If scientists cannot observe it, test it, replicate it, nor verify it… than it is outside of the natural world and therefore supernatural. Richard Dawkins, has stated that we “need to define religion as belief in something supernatural.” Webster defines supernatural as being part “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.”
On December 15, 1791 the Establishment Clause was added as part of the first Amendment to the United States Constitution which clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If teaching evolution promotes faith in the supernatural phenomenon of the emergence of new species, it cannot be legally taught in US public schools.
The scientific journal titled, EVOLUTION is funded by tax dollars through the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences. The journal has stated that the “prevalence of religious belief in the United States suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution… another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America.”
If educators in the field of evolutionary biology are keen on “loosening the grip of faith on America,” they have the right to do so, but not with public funds. Evolution is undergirded by a clear and honest agenda of the eradication of evolution-opposing faiths. Our publicly funded and required evolutionary curriculum is unconstitutional. The governmental backing of biological evolution is a crime. Using public funds to support evolutionary education is illegal.
Adopting an approach of teaching how science works is far greater than teaching how to infer conclusions from a biased view of that which cannot be observed, tested, replicated, and verified.
If the youth of today are taught to face problems like hunger, gridlock, energy sustainability, waste, medicine, water scarcity, and terrorism just to name a few… our nation will be in a position of continued and sustainable breakthrough… bringing wealth and prosperity for generations to come.
When attempting to scientifically answer the question “How Did We Get Here?”, do not forget that evolution, creation, and theistic evolution all require faith. True science cannot explain life’s diversity. We lack empirical gnosis which is Greek for knowledge. So, to claim Empirical Agnosticism means that scientifically speaking we do not know how we got here. The next time a conversation revolves around how life became what it is, remember that evolution takes faith, creation takes faith, theistic evolution takes faith, but Empirical Agnosticism is scientifically honest.
For information about other video projects and to receive a free sample of the book this short film was based upon…visit: ThreeQuestionsThatMatter.com
Thanks to those who made this film better!
IMAGES & VIDEO
SCRIPT & NARRATION
William James Herath
All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2017