The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins © 2014 Paul Henebury

[This article was originally posted on Dr. way through high school. And when I Henebury’s BLOG.1] attended college I was taught it there too, When I look at your heavens, the even though it wasn’t really part of the business degree that I was doing. work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in I wasn’t a Christian until I was 25, and was place, what is man that you are not from a particularly religious household, mindful of him, and the son of man so I believed more or less in evolution, that you care for him? Yet you have although always in the back of my mind I made him a little lower than the could not quite understand how life came heavenly beings and crowned him from non-life. Neither could I grasp how with glory and honor. You have the marvelous beauty and order that we given him dominion over the works see in life could be accounted for by of your hands; you have put all random unguided particles banging things under his feet. – Psalm 8:3-6 together. Neither could I quite understand how the theory of evolution could account According to the Bible, man, here meaning for the significance that we find in our own male and female (Gen. 1:27), is a very lives. We write poetry, we write love special part of God’s creation. According songs, we listen to music of one sort or to the scientific establishment we are another that expresses our inner emotions, nothing more than advanced animals, and what we feel about ourselves, and newly arrived upon the scene of earth how important we think certain things are history, without any more significance than to the world and to life itself. We do this a trilobite or a sea-horse. all the time; it’s natural for the human Most of us are familiar with naturalistic being to do it, and I just could not evolution. This is what I was taught from a understand how this sense of significance young child growing up in England all the could be part of an evolutionary process. Why did we evolve to see our own

significance and reflect upon it? Why try 1 to better it, critique it, and eulogize it? So http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2014/07/21 there were these things that the ‘science’ /the-incoherence-of-evolutionary-origins-1/ did not fully explain to me. This is taken from an introductory lecture in I have listened to and read many the TELOS Course “The Doctrine of Man evolutionists. I believe that at a and Sin” The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins fundamental level, Evolution is the creation either going to just freeze, as entropy myth of the secularist, of the unbeliever. completely disintegrates, or we’re going to fry as the whole thing burns up. They don’t want to believe in the In between the Big Bang and the big Creator. They don’t want to believe that there is a God whom they have to freeze there is no significance or meaning face. Therefore, as theologian Millard other than what we can find in and of ourselves. We make it all up. There is no Erickson tells us in his Christian Theology, great explanation, there is no providential (2nd ed. 501f.), they have a group of plan. Life came from non-life by lightning processes into which they pour their faith, hitting a “pre-biotic” (‘prior to life’) which, superficially at least, produce and pond. Scientific laws weren’t laws until explain everything that is, including all the after these things conveniently came diversity of life. All that is needed is ‘a together. We should not see ourselves as combination of atoms, motion, time, and anything more significant than temporary chance.’ As Erickson says, no attempt is cosmic accidents. made to account for these givens; they are simply there, the basis of everything else. Seven Basic (Silly) Assumptions Now this is certainly true. Anybody who Someone has said that, “The basic believes in evolution will not even try to assumptions of evolution are: think behind the ramifications of what 1. Inorganic chemicals gave rise to life they’re saying, and will not try to give an (belief in spontaneous generation – in explanation for the processes that they say modern garb). delivered up to us “reality” (which they can 2. Spontaneous generation only scarcely define), as we presently happened once. (They believe it only experience it. It is just therethey say. It happened once because it is such an all could have been any other way, but it astronomically absurdly impossible just happened to be this way. One famous thing to even postulate. Though some scientist said that the reason that the think it happened many times). world is the way it is, is because it was the 3. All living organisms are therefore way that it is. In other words, just things related (IF the first two statements are are the way that they are and there’s no true) real reason behind it; no personality, no 4. Single celled organisms [protozoa] Creator to guide it or to give it any further gave rise to multi-celled organisms significance than just accidental [metazoa] occurrences. All of the matter and energy 5. Invertebrates are all related in the universe, and all of the different 6. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates combinations of it came from a Big Bang, 7. From fish we get amphibians, reptiles, and the far future scenarios for the birds, and mammals.” universe are either freeze or fry. We’re

These are taken from a book by G.A. of logic and number “evolved.” The Big Kerkut called Implications of Bang is the most popular notion of the Evolution. One wonders if he really origin of the universe at the present time, although there is a significant lobby of thought through the “implications”! dissidents. The Big Bang is an Those are of the seven basic assumptions explosion. All explosions are chaotic, that evolutionists make about disorderly things. (The Big Bang exploded evolution. Other assumptions are made flat – not in all directions). In other ways about reality. For example, that morals, or it would have been like every other the laws of thought are culturally- explosion: confused and irrational. conditioned; that there is a correlation But from this chaos the vast complexity of between what is in man’s mind and what the first life sprang: not, it is true, is outside of man’s mind, and that correlation can be studied, analyzed, and overnight, but over billions of years. From mathematically predicted in terms of art, this incoherence the coherent came. Do architecture, technology, and of course, we ever see coherence, in the form the “science of evolution.” of sequenced “specified” complexity, arise out of chaos and disorder? No we do But why and how did the amazing fine- not. Nothing self-orders in complex and tuning in the universe evolve? A fine- specific ways without a code. And a code tuning whereby the universe itself seems needs someone to write it. But to be particularly the way it is so that life evolutionary naturalism requires just the can exist upon this planet. Well, if it didn’t, opposite. we wouldn’t be here asking about it!” And that’s an answer? These and other Furthermore, as we, the observers, presuppositions evolutionists have. They recognize and analyze the coherence in don’t really try to see the convenience of it the world, our standing (or existence) as all; let alone the significance. They just try observers must be accounted for. This to ignore the coincidences and ignore the was one of the questions asked by signals of design and purpose all around Richards and Gonzalez in their book The them while believing an incredible and oft- Privileged Planet. It is a good disproved theory. question. Why is the world comprehensible? Why can we do science? The Fusion of Confusion This question must be addressed by Evolutionists, except the rather small creationists and evolutionists. It cannot be coterie of Theistic ones, believe every ducked on the pretext that evolution does complex and meticulously ordered thing not concern itself with such got here through mechanisms which we matters. Biological evolution does neither see now nor can see in the evidence left in the past. Even our cognitive faculties and the immaterial laws

www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 3 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins not. But there is such a thing as “chemical have resulted in disorganized evolution”. There is even a Center2 for it! matter. In order to provide an appropriate framework for life, a One prominent evolutionist puts the matter machinist would still be necessary, clearly: one who could construct several One has only to contemplate the thousand specific proteins, nucleic magnitude of this task, to concede acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, and that the spontaneous generation of lipids in their exact configurations, a living organism is impossible. Yet, all the while maintaining the here we are as a result, I believe, of integrity of each molecule in the 3 spontaneous generation.” collection.5

We must not link this use of “spontaneous Also, as Meyer explains, generation” with the old idea that new life arises from rotting meat. Once this is kept Every choice the investigator makes to actualize one condition and in mind there is nothing wrong with Wald’s use of the term. But talk about the power exclude another – to remove one of presuppositions! He believes in the by-product and not another – impossible. And as we shall see, it is not imparts information into the system. Therefore, whatever one isolated “impossibility” that evolutionists have to swallow. In fact, it is “success” these experiments have not even the first. achieved in producing biologically relevant compounds occurs as a Has this kind of evolution (a form of direct result of the activity of the abiogenesis) ever been demonstrated? It experimentalist – a conscious, has not (link4). One creationist writer intelligent, deliberative mind – comments: performing the experiments.6 After decades of investigation, no environment has been discovered To an evolutionist this means that “when” that facilitates abiogenesis. The somebody produces organic cells from its richest inventory of chemical constituents the cry will go up, “We have compounds have been zapped, discovered the conditions in which life irradiated, dried, rehydrated, and arose.” But would it? While some subjected to a host of parameters. confidence in the deliverances of science, All of these processes, however, even defined in reductionistic tones, is warranted, and the great successes of 2 http://centerforchemicalevolution.com/about scientists lend encouragement to the belief 3 George Wald, The Molecular Basis of Life, 339 that more is to come, it is extremely 4 https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of- life/primordial-soup/attempts-trace-life-back- 5 Brian Thomas, Origin of Life Research Still chemical-origins-maps-willful-ignorance- Dead. hunters/ 6 Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 335. www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 4 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins doubtful that any of these successes have because it evokes a scene where someone any logical connection to belief in blind from birth, and having no prior evolution. Scientists holding to evolution knowledge of watches, proceeds over time have done marvelous things, and so have to put together one of these marvelous scientists not holding to evolution. But the mechanisms in full working principle of testing competing hypotheses order. Misleading because the is not bettered by a belief which itself has watchmaker himself, also envisioned as a failed to substantiate any of its major product of evolution, but being far more tenets. complex than the watch, must also be explained. Although Dawkins is being To any other person any announcement rhetorical, calling evolutionary processes that scientists have found the original by this name commits the fallacy of environment for life would only prove that reification – a very common fault with trained scientists, knowing the constituents these people. of cellular organisms, have replicated what was (perhaps) previously done. It would What these sorts of quotes are telling us is certainly not prove it was achieved by that because of their naturalistic bias, undirected mindless processes. If these eminent evolutionists will not even evolutionists could do such a thing (and consider special creation as an they can’t), they would, in their alternative. And as there are just two announcements, be sure to divert models of origins, evolution (in their view), attention away from the designed and wins by default: it must be true no matter controlled laboratory conditions and the how much evidence accrues to falsify training and funding of the scientists. it. Operating from such an outlook the evolutionist is doomed to miss the wood The Blind and Ignorant for the trees. Watchmaker Evolution is treated as unfalsifiable, and is Richard Dawkins wrote, treated as such because it is viewed as Biology is the study of complicated having so much power to uphold the things that give the appearance of philosophy of naturalism. It is the only having been designed for a avenue of explanation open to the materialist, and cannot be allowed to purpose.7 buckle under unwelcome scrutiny. It is We all know this quote, but behind it lies a treated and taught as an unassailable steely determination not to recognize what fact. Evolution supports we all do recognize in every other walk of naturalism. Naturalism is the only life – design. The title of his book is methodology permitted by interesting but misleading. Interesting evolutionists. Ergo, naturalism must support evolution. It is viciously circular.

Writing some time ago, two evolutionists idea that ‘life can come from non- admitted that, life’ is called abiogenesis, which is assumed by evolutionists to have Our theory of evolution has become one occurred only once or a few times at which cannot be refuted by any possible most in earth history. This conclusion is not a result of observation ; every conceivable observation evidence, but is obtained because can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of the current dominant worldview in empirical science, but not necessarily Western science, naturalism, false. No one can think of ways in which to requires a chance spontaneous test it. Ideas, either without basis, or based origin of life.10 on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have The blind watchmaker seems to be on a hiding to nowhere. attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an Life not from Earth evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us It is a universal law which, as all scientific 8 as part of our training. laws, has not witnessed an exception: life does not come from non-life. Yet Things haven’t changed: evolutionists, of the non-theistic sort) must teach that it does. Going further back, ex Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked nihilo nihil fit, out of nothing comes by beliefs that are wrong and if you nothing. No one has ever seen or heard of try to get anything published by a something (i.e. that which has properties journal today, you will run up and permits predication) coming into against a paradigm and the editors existence from nothing (that which has no properties and does not permit will turn it down.9 predication). Yet evolutionist must adhere But the law of biogenesis holds. Why look to the contradiction of this very basic for ways to circumvent it? principle. That is, unless they want to teach the eternity of matter. Biologists know only that all life derives from proceeding life, and Is it a sign of rationality and a coherent that the parent organism’s offspring system to flout two empirically static are always of the same kind. The principles of science at the very outset of ones thinking? So how do they get around it? 8 E. Birch and PR Ehrlich, The Journal of Nature, 1967, number 214 9 Sir Fred Hoyle, from ‘Scientific American, of 10 March 1995′, quoted by Andy Jerry Bergman, In Six Days – edited by John Macintosh, Genesis for Today. Ashton, 40 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 6 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins

Staying with the life question, one quite Francis Crick and Carl Sagan believed that popular maneuver is to equivocate on the it had to start elsewhere and come from word “life”. Instead of keeping with a outer space (And the complexity of the cell basic definition like “a self-replicating is known to be yet more wondrous than organism” (which is a reductionistic and these men knew). Of course, claiming life often imaginary concept itself), they talk came from outer space isn’t an answer at about “life” within hypothetical all (although it might keep the issue of extrapolations where amino acids are biogenesis off the table for a while formed in an ancient “soup” under longer). We still have to ask, ‘How did life propitious chance conditions. In this start some other place in the chance scenario these different amino universe?’ Out of sight, out of mind is acids came together in one place, beating really all that is being done here; just a off all the enormous odds of ultra-violet rhetorical trick. destruction and threat of contamination This rhetorical trick is performed all the A self-replicating cellular and, voila! “Life.” time by evolutionists. They simply put their system? No. Any DNA? No. What was it imaginations forward as some kind of then? So the story (or “Well suppose…..” scientific proof. Therefore, they try to put a version of it) runs. In evolutionism, the burden of proof on someone who says organic life must come from non-living ‘Well, how did this happen?’ They say,”I’m compounds. So much the worse for the not sure, but I can imagine it happened laws of science. this way.” If they can imagine it happened The problems with getting life started, that way, then it could have happened that even granted the excessive gratuity of the way, couldn’t it? This is what Miller-Urey, 20 correct left-handed amino acids which or Avida or any other like program is. As make up basic proteins, would still remain Stephen Meyer has said about these a fantasy. In fact, as geneticist John information fed extrapolations, Sanford, the inventor o f the ‘gene gun’ has Since the lawlike processes of said, “fill the whole world with proteins, necessity do not generate new and you would still be no closer to getting information, these combinatorial life. Because proteins do not equal models invariably rely upon chance This is because of the amazing life.” events to do most, if not all the work micro-machinery within even the simplest of producing new information. This cell; machinery which is told what to do by problem arises repeatedly for a ‘code’ far more advanced than any models invoking prebiotic natural computer software we possess. selection in conjunction with random Knowing the extremely unlikely chances events, whether Oparin’s theories or that life could come about on this various RNA-world scenarios. Since planet the way many evolutionists had natural selection “selects” for hoped, eminent scientists like Fred Hoyle, functional advantage, and since

functional advantage ensues only hence begging the question. Do after the result of a successful forks and spoons and scissors and random search for functional whisks have a common ancestor? information, combination models f. Since evolutionists wrongly invariably rely upon chance rather predicted there would be much than selection to produce new “junk DNA” (see Meyer, Signature, information. Yet these theories face 406-407) and creationists rightly formidable probabilistic hurdles, just predicted there wouldn’t, why label as pre-chance models do.11 evolution science and creationism religion? Here are some fundamental questions to g. How long is it going to be until start with: evolutionists admit that the fossil a. If the chances of a living cell record, which is the sole source for coming from non-living elements determining the truth or falsity of (which themselves came from evolutionary history, undermines hydrogen and helium!) are the whole theory? staggeringly small, why believe it? b. All living cells contain DNA, but The Math how did the informational The mathematics on this is just instructions (incredibly complex staggering! Michael Denton is not specific code) for each of the cell’s Christian, doesn’t believe in God, and he operations come about? doesn’t believe in creationism, but he c. As every instance of this kind of doesn’t believe in the present neo- instructional information ever Darwinistic view of evolution either. He known comes from minds, why says that it’s ‘nonsensical’. Writing about

look for it’s cause in mindlessness? the possibility of life starting by chance he d. Why because all amino acids are says: left-handed must that mean all life is related to a common ancestor? As it can easily be shown that no (a variety of the compositional more than 10 to the power of 40 fallacy). possible proteins could have ever e. In the same vein (and the same existed on earth since its formation fallacy), why because different [and Denton believes Earth is billions creatures have features which look of years old], this means that if similar are they necessarily derived protein functions reside in from a common source? N.B. sequences any less probable than 10 These fallacies are built upon the to the power of -40 it becomes increasingly unlikely that any premise that evolution is true – functional proteins could ever have been discovered by chance on earth. 11 Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 331 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 8 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins

To get a cell by chance would universe consisted of an organic require at least 100 functional soup.12 proteins to appear simultaneously in one place; that is 100 simultaneous These numbers are closer to nil than events, each of an independent quarks and mesons are to nothing. When probability, which could hardly be you are getting this kind of figure; when more than 10 to the power of -20, you think that 10 to the power of 40 giving a maximum combined possible proteins ever existed, and yet the probability of 10 to the power of - chances of life originating by chance is 10 2,000. to the power of 40,000, you need to give it up. We are way past Disneyland Evolutionists have got to take the odds imagination here. We’re in Cuckoo Land. (although they often subtract important Again data to reduce the number). Denton continues: the probability that even one of these information-rich molecules Recently Hoyle and Wickramasinghe arose by chance, let alone the suite in Evolution from Space provided a of such molecules necessary to similar estimate of the chance of life maintain or build a minimally originating, assuming functional complex cell, is so small as to dwarf proteins have a probability of 10 to the probabilistic resources of the the power of -20: ‘By itself this small entire universe.13 probability could be faced because one must contemplate not just a Evolution couldn’t get going. The single shot at obtaining the enzyme, mechanism of evolution is natural but a very large number of trials selection, but that cannot be part of the such as are supposed to have equation at this critical juncture. This is occurred in an organic soup early in nonsense. the history of the earth.’ The trouble is that there are about 2000 Yet according to Hazen and Trefil in the enzymes, and the chance of book Science Matters, the first stage obtaining them all in a random trial chemical evolution, “encompasses the is only one part in 10 to the power origin of life from non-life.” We have of 20 to the power of 2000; that is every right to say, “No it doesn’t!” 10 to the power of 40,000, an And when we have the National outrageously small probability that Association of Biology Teachers in the USA could not be faced even if the whole writing such things as:

The diversity of life on earth is the say that the theory is likely to be outcome of evolution; an false.14 unpredictable and natural process of temporal dissent with genetic That is putting it mildly. modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical After the Impossible Hurdle contingencies, and changing Evolution is the atheists’ way out. It is his environments. escape clause from having to face the God who created him. People like Richard We have a right to ask if that is what the Dawkins may convince themselves that it fossil evidence demonstrates. It makes atheism intellectually respectable, demonstrates the exact opposite. We but they must first convince themselves have a right to proof that genetic entropy that naturalism is intellectually respectable. does not far outpace beneficial genetic The problem here is that, as in many walks modification. We have a right to inquire of life, it is possible to arrange our about the circularity of the whole idea of arguments selectively and with rhetorical natural selection and its power to effect conviction while ignoring the issues, even the macroevolutionary change implied in the most obvious ones. So if we begin to the statement above. stack up the problems: – something does Even if we allow them every pass, they not come from nothing; life does not come have not come anywhere near proving from non-life; the mathematics of macroevolution. We could even go so far sequence space (not enough time); the as the progressive creationists and allow contradiction of using target-oriented some form of evolution. Thus, Collins computer programs to “simulate” discrete observes: non-targeted chance scenarios; the logical Let us grant that it is possible that fallacies (question-begging, composition, some parts of neo-Darwinism are reification), etc., these problems make the right. Say that animals today are intellectual satisfaction appear rather descended from animals that lived hollow. long ago and that there has been But after such matters as these are some process of evolutionary engaged, there are still more change, the question is however is difficulties. One such is irreducible the grand theory as a whole worth complexity. First posited by biochemist believing? Well, if it depends on Michael Behe, and, despite rumours to the claims that haven’t been proven, we contrary, not close to being refuted, this can say that it hasn’t been proven observational theory says that function in true and if it depends on things that highly complex systems requires that all are likely to be false then we can the necessary parts are in position and

14 C. John Collins, Science and Faith, 270- 271 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 10 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins ready to work for the system itself to be the proclivity of evolutionists for what it is. In Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, extrapolation and reification. he has looked at the incredibly complex engines in the cells and he has shown that Doing what comes Naturalistically the different features of the cell must all As many a scientist will tell you, true have been there at the same time, already science must – I say must – proceed manufactured, and ready to do their jobs. along naturalistic lines. We must seek for The blind non-teleological forces of natural explanations in the natural world evolution cannot explain either the design for the phenomena we come across. of these complex and minuscule machines, Now, on the face of it, the only thing nor can it explain the simultaneity of these which could be criticized in that sentiment parts; each one functioning the way that it is its doctrinaire flavor. The problem with should function. Behe uses a by now well it is that there are many phenomena which known illustration: cannot be satisfactorily explained as Irreducible complexity’ is just a arising naturally even though they are fancy phrase I use to mean a single amenable to observation and system that is composed of several experimentation. The method of science interacting parts, where the removal should not exclude a priori non-naturalistic of any one of the parts causes the explanations, because not invoking God as system to cease functioning. For the Creator and Designer of nature moves example, the mousetrap has to have the naturalist beyond experimentation and a platform, a catch, a holding bar, a hypothesis testing into metaphysical spring, and a hammer in order to dogmatism and its resulting 15 function as a mousetrap. blindness. Phillip Johnson well describes the metaphysical fog which methodological Evolutionists have claimed that since some naturalism encourages: individual features in these systems are found to do work in other systems, that Philosophical naturalism is so deeply means evolution could have picked up and ingrained in the thinking of many selected them to include in a future educated people today, including system. But not only does this fail to theologians, that they find it difficult address the “irreducible” part of Behe’s even to imagine any other way of argument (as noted by him in an appendix looking at things… Even if they do to the 10th Anniversary edition of his develop doubts about whether such book), it also lends evolution a prescience modest forces can account for large- it actually does not have – again showing scale change, their naturalism is undisturbed. Since there is nothing outside of nature, and since

something must have produced all 15Michael Behe in William Dembski & James Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence, 93 the kinds of organisms that exist, a www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 11 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins

satisfactory naturalistic mechanism nature. The deistic strain in such thinking must be awaiting discovery.16 should not be lost. Whatever, this was not good theology. As a result of the Under these conditions it is impossible to hardening of this resolve a questionable do what Kepler or Newton or Maxwell or philosophical tenet has been turned into Faraday did, and do good science while an established rule of science. leaving a route open where the facts can lead to God (if Carl Sagan believed the He observes: facts could lead to aliens why could they Across the various fields of study, not lead to God?). It is exactly this the common requirement is that cognitive rut which one so often sees in explanations be naturalistic. And in the reviews of creationist and I.D. books this grand paradigm there is a grand by methodological naturalists of all blind spot. Problems are never stripes. The charges, “they don’t interpreted as problems with the understand evolution”, or “this writer paradigm. No matter how doesn’t know how stages of bone-growth implausible, when explanations do [or whatever] follow evolutionary not fit the data very well, they are pathways”, etc, show up this often said to be research problems. They unnoticed slavery of thought. These must be, for there is no option for people cannot conceive of a situation considering that a problem might be where evolution is wrong or where better handled by another philosophical naturalism does not equate paradigm.17 to doing science. Yet scientific naturalism, Hunter goes on to In his thought-provoking book Sci ence’s say, Blind Spot, Cornelius Hunter demonstrates is not a discovery of science it is a that it was aberrant theological – presupposition of science as assumptions, fueled by natural theology, 18 that installed and sustained the illegitimate currently practiced. reign of naturalism over science in the first And it is a presupposition which, though it place. It was the dysteleology in the now maintains the naturalistic paradigm, world; the imperfections and extinctions, cannot in fact support the the scientific which God had to be protected from. God, enterprise as a meaningful endeavor. In it was thought, would not have made the fact, it is the materialist outlook on life and world less than perfect. Therefore, to mind that poses perhaps the biggest invoke God would be to connect Him obstacle to any sound philosophy of uncomfortably to the “wrongness” of science.

16 17 Phillip E. Johnson, “Evolution as Dogma”, Cornelius G. Hunter, Science’s Blind Spot: The in Uncommon Dissent, William A. Dembski, Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, 46 editor, 30. 18 Ibid, 47 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 12 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins

In contrast, the Biblical Worldview provides revelation. The fact that God created the a basis for the uniformity of nature in world and created man in His image meant God’s unchanging character and His that to find out what God had done was covenant with Noah. But it also insists the both legitimate as to fueling an the existence of the supernatural (God) is expectation of discovery, and meaningful the precondition of the natural; that because Creation had been endowed with reason must precede unreason because its own integrity apart from God while the reverse scenario is impossible, and so being supervened by God. In this they non-demonstrable. It has never been were in line with the Reformers like Calvin, experienced by anyone anywhere. This has who said: to do with the laws of information which I Meanwhile being placed in this most shall discuss in the last post. So, beautiful theater, let us not decline something does not come from nothing to take a pious delight in the clear (law of causality); matter is not eternal and manifest works of God. For as (first 2 laws of thermodynamics); life does we have elsewhere observed, not come from non-life (law of though not the chief, it is in point of biogenesis); amino acids cannot thrive in a order, the first evidence of faith to reduced (oxygen free) atmosphere (2nd remember to which side, so ever we law of thermodynamics), but neither can turn, that all which meets the eye is they thrive in a water-based environment the work of God, and at the same (law of hydrolysis). Finally, (though more time to meditate with pious care on could be added) reason implies the end which God had in view in information which cannot come from creating it.20 mindless particles (laws of information). These are laws because they Hence, the pursuance of science have never been countermanded in our as scientia (knowledge) was seen to be a experience. full-orbed task, unpartitioned as yet by the The Definition of Science bifurcation of phenomenal and noumenal; natural and supernatural: all knowledge In the course of writing about the idea of had some revelatory significance. Alas, science in his Systematic Theology, the Royal Society does not see the world Reformed writer Michael Horton notes that through the same eyes as its founders. “Britain’s Royal Society was founded by Puritans.”19 Saying this does not mean that scientists should not follow certain methods for The Puritans saw no clash, either discovery. These methods will differ ontological or methodological, in pursuing depending on the phenomena under science as a response to God’s investigation, but the thing to be kept in

19 Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, 339 20John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian n.48 Religion, I. 14, 20 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 13 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins mind is that Christians were for science Doing science in God’s world as if God isn’t while at the same time seeing no problem there is no less culpable today than it with bringing God the Creator into the would have been had Adam named the conversation; not as a replacement for animals while pretending God did not scientific descriptions of the world He has exist. Further, it is no less irrational. made, but as THE Reality which makes sense of every other reality, and the study A Big Problem with Scientific Naturalism of that reality. Indeed, to insist that to (In these posts scientific, philosophical and evoke God as Cause means science comes methodological naturalism are used to an end usually entails bad theology and interchangeably). falls foul of the law of the excluded Cornelius Van Til observed that, middle. To make the issue either/or is both to show ignorance of the rise of the Non-Christian science has worked Christian-theistic origins of modern science with the borrowed capital of and to put into practice the blunder of Christian theism, and for that reason begging the question. If God created the alone has been able to bring to light 22 world and He invites us to explore it and to much truth. analyze it, most assuredly He does not The reason for this is because want us to emit the cry “God did that!” philosophical or scientific naturalism is not and walk away from our scientific self-justifying. Just because persons of all experiments and hypotheses. At the same time He does not want His creatures to do different persuasions can do science does science as if He was not the Designer, not mean that these same persuasions are Creator and Sustainer of both man’s competent to act as an apology for science faculties and the extended world which and/or the search for truth. David Hume’s those faculties investigate. Indeed, the arguments against cause and effect dominant idea of science as naturalism reduced everything to habitual practices cannot itself uphold science as a pursuit within a state of affairs which could because naturalism as metaphysical change tomorrow. We are merely “a dogma fails to give a coherent account of bundle of perceptions.” We cannot know either. As Horton rightly says, for sure that tomorrow will be as today. In fact, the standard Copi & The natural sciences… excel in Cohen Introduction to Logic (11th edition) weighing, measuring, observing, and lists that very belief as a classic example of predicting, but they exceed the the fallacy of begging the bounds of their competence when question! Hence, on naturalistic they reduce all phenomena to presuppositions the logic of testing natural causes.21

22 Cited in Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: 21 Horton, The Christian Faith, 340 Readings & Analysis, 377 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 14 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins hypotheses breaks down, because it relies variations of human thought and on a belief about the future which is one could not be more true than the empirically closed-off and logically other in any objective or absolute fallacious. A sine qua non for science; the sense.23 principle of uniformity, is not itself open to This is science played on purely naturalistic the vaunted “scientific method” – within the naturalistic approach. instruments: no strings, no composer, no instruments. If Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins are to be believed, we are Many philosophers of science have shown nothing more than brain chemistry. But if that there is no one agreed upon or completely serviceable definition of science that is “true” then nothing is true and science is a futile self-delusion. (the pronouncements of scientists notwithstanding). The literature is vast If the rational human mind is merely (See e.g., Del Ratzsch, Science and Its a biological product, which it must Limits). Stephen Meyer demonstrates well be if naturalistic evolution were true, in his books Signature in the Cell then the mind is not an independent and Darwin’s Doubt that he and other I.D. observer, no matter how complex or advocates employ the very same tools sophisticated it may be and it is which Darwin used and which scientists therefore not truly free to explore or today use. The real issue is not how examine reality. The functions of the scientists operate, but which worldview mind would be produced and these people operate within. controlled solely by the genetic chemical makeup of, and the Scientists Aren’t Fools environmental influences on, each A common defense which is heard when individual. Because of the complexity evolution and its mother philosophy are of the mental faculties, the brain questioned is that scientists are not itself being incredibly intricate, there fools. Setting aside the obvious truth that would be some natural variation in all of us, scientist or no, can and have thought patterns, So not everyone been fools, I shall narrow the definition would think exactly alike but the down to the meaning that “scientists are variations would be like the aware of what they are doing.” And the multitude of variations found in reply one should give to that sort of roses or in dogs. Just as ‘Peace’ and answer is, “so what?” ‘American Beauty’ are both roses despite their significant differences, If that seems unkind let me clarify. To the and Great Danes and Yorkshire objection that naturalistic scientists have Terriers are both dogs despite their good reasons for pointing to the Big Bang, differences, so atheism and theism or homology or the fossil record as proof would simply be examples of natural 23 L. Russ Bush, The Advancement, 39 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 15 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins that they are on the right track it may be assuredly not! They have both cut off pointed back that this is another non access to much truth by adopting a false sequitur. Michael Polanyi, the famous perspective on the world. For as Phillip chemist and philosopher of science, used Johnson observes, the example of the premise “all men must Natural science is thus based on die” to drive this home. Speaking of naturalism. What a science based “primitive peoples” he said, on naturalism tells us, not Such people believe that no man surprisingly, is that naturalism is 25 ever dies, except as a victim of evil true. magic… Their denial of natural death The Neutrality Myth is part of their general belief that events which are harmful to man are Another popular misconception touted by never natural, but always the atheists and naturalistic scientists is that outcome of magic wrought by some they are neutral in all of this. But that malevolent person. In this magical very opinion is a product of their interpretation of experience we see naturalism. As we have said, and as some causes which to us are others like Phillip Johnson have shown, massive and plain… or even within their outlook neither evolution nor irrelevant to the event (like the the methodology it needs to sustain it are passing overhead of a rare bird)… open to falsification. Certainly the rhetoric The primitive peoples holding these is there, but the reality something else. beliefs are of normal To help them keep the blinders on they intelligence. Yet they not only find are enthusiastic advocates of the unbiblical their views wholly consistent with Kantian dichotomy of phenomenal and everyday experience, but will uphold noumenal, science and religion, or fact and them firmly in the face of any value. The pragmatic dividends for doing attempts on the part of Europeans this are immense. What it means is that to refute them by reference to such the naturalist evolutionist can introduce 24 experience. teleology and design to his hearts content within the safe parameters of naturalistic Are these people fools? No. But then method, while shoving teleological perhaps Polanyi is trying to get us to see concerns which have Theistic implications that the question is inappropriate. The into the non-scientific hinterland of real question is, “is the worldview “Faith.” Thus, it has been shown that, true?” to that question the Christian must answer the evolutionary naturalist as he Historically, purpose (or teleology) was a primary explanation or would answer the “primitive” native: interpretive category in science. The

connections between underlying needs mindless processes to be purposes and observable things purposeful: were perceived as being strong The Darwinian mechanism neither enough to allow the empirical study anticipates nor remembers. It gives of nature to be a source of no directions and makes no knowledge about God. Tracing such choices. What is unacceptable in connections was a popular project evolutionary theory, what is strictly for scientists until well into the forbidden, is the appearance of a 26 twentieth century. force with the power to survey time, a force that conserves a point or a One need only think of Faraday’s public property because it will be experiments or Maxwell’s having a Latin useful. Such a force is no longer motto from the Psalms engraved over the Darwinian. How would a blind force doorway of the Cavendish Laboratory in know such a thing? And by what Cambridge to see the truth of this means could future usefulness be assertion. Van Til put his finger on the transmitted to the present? real problem:

The difference between the He concludes: prevalent method of science, that is scientific materialism, and the It is a rule which cannot be violated method of Christianity, the method with impunity; if evolutionary theory of Copernicus and Pasteur, that is is to retain its intellectual integrity, it theistic science, is not that the cannot be violated at all. But the former is interested in finding the rule is widely violated, the violations facts and is ready to follow the facts so frequent as to amount to a formal wherever they lead, while the latter fallacy.28 is not ready to follow the fact. The difference is rather that the former So where does the problem lie? In which wants to study the facts without realm does the penny drop? Van Til tells God, while the latter wants to study us, the facts in the light of the Eve was compelled to assume the 27 revelation God gives of himself. equal ultimacy of the minds of God, of the devil, and of herself. And this Agnostic writer David Berlinski describes surely excluded the exclusive the quandary this bifurcation of reality ultimacy of God. This therefore was (more accurately, the exclusion of God) leaves the naturalistic evolutionist in. He a denial of God’s absoluteness epistemologically. Thus neutrality 26 Del Ratzsch, Science and Its Limits, 95 27 28 Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: David Berlinski, in Uncommon Dissent, ed. W. Readings and Analysis, 176 Dembski, 277 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 17 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins

was based upon negation. Neutrality perfect symmetry – IF God was working is negation.29 within them! Having said this it has to be noted that The first and last resort of unbelief is to although methodological naturalism is send believing scientists to Coventry by seized upon by materialists with fervor, it defining “Science” alongstrictly naturalistic is not identical with philosophical cum lines. The problem of pretended neutrality metaphysical naturalism. It was brought as the problem of naturalistic philosophy into the rule of science by theists. The generally, is a theological one. problem was though, these well- Natural Theology and intentioned theists were not paying as much attention to their Bibles as they Methodological Naturalism ought to have done. Hunter notices the How can scientific naturalism be a child of case of the great Botanist John Ray, who Christian theology? That is a good “would argue on the one hand that nature question. One would think that such a revealed design but on the other hand that methodology, disposed as it is to serve the the world was not directly created, as worldviews of materialists and atheists, evidenced by its errors and bungles.” and presented by them as indispensable to (Ibid, 53). These “errors and bungles” in good science, would have been contrived nature could not, it was thought, be laid at by them, but such is not the case. the feet of God. Logically, therefore, they In fact Cornelius Hunter contends that, had to come about via purely natural processes. What we need…is a clear understanding of what naturalism The erroneous notion under which these is. Naturalism’s adherents think that theistic naturalists were operating it is a scientific discovery, and its stemmed itself from the dictates of a form detractors think it is atheism in of natural theology. In their book In disguise. In fact, it is a rationalist Defense of Natural Theology, James movement built on a foundation of F. Sennett and Douglas Groothuis define it religious thought and traditions that this way: mandate a world that operates according to natural laws and The attempt to provide rational processes.30 justification for theism using only those sources of information If this is so, it was thought that those laws accessible to all inquirers, namely and processes would be primed to produce the data of empirical experience and the dictates of human reason. In other words, it is defensive theism without recourse to purported 29 Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, 21. Special Revelation. 30 Cornelius G. Hunter, Science’s Blind Spot, 50 www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 18 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins

I am not claiming that Sennett and Scripture while Natural Theology self- Groothuis endorse Ray’s position, but this consciously is not. definition does serve to show how such a Why this digression to talk about Natural position might come about, especially at Theology? Because it furnished the the dawn of the modern scientific era. As original conditions and the rationale for time went on the anti-theists of the naturalism in science and is still often Enlightenment took hold of what the invoked (sometimes without knowing) by theists handed them and employed it with people, be they Christians or unbelievers, relish. Would that these theists had to defend methodological naturalism in understood that the Natural Theology science. Methodological naturalism came which they used to divine nature’s “errors about through poor theology; it is a and bungles” was itself shot through with bastard-child of ill-understood doctrines, the same. and it now legitimates itself through its What causes still more friction is that those associations with established scientific who like Natural Theology commonly call it procedure and the requirements of General Revelation. But the two are very evolutionary dogma. Nobody questions its different. There is not an awful lot that I credentials. It serves a bigger purpose. would agree with when it comes to the Indeed, on some grounds not immediately work of William Abraham, but he is quite dependent upon Natural Theology, even right in separating the disciplines of the evolution hypothesis is not General Revelation and Natural incompatible with Christianity. For Theology. He says it well: instance, Alvin Plantinga, though no It has been common to run together evolutionist, in the first part of his Where General Revelation and Natural The Conflict Really Lies, has shown that Theology, but this is clearly a there is no necessary conflict between mistake. The doctrine of General evolution and Christianity. But this is not Revelation involves an assertion that to say that when it comes down to it there God is revealed ‘generally’ in is no incompatibility. Agree with him or creation Natural Theology involves – not, all Plantinga is saying is that certain an argument from general features approaches to Christian Theology – of the universe to the proposition approaches dispensing with plain that God exists.31 interpretation and the problem of death and thorns before the Fall can The term General Revelation has often – theoretically incorporate Neo-Darwinian been co-opted by natural theologians views. to mean Natural Theology. But General Revelation is a doctrine which is subject to Two Large Obstacles

Of course, two very large obstacles get in 31 William J. Abraham, Crossing the Threshold of The first is Divine Revelation, 67 n.7 the way of “Theistic Evolution”. www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 19 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins the actual text and theology of the Bible, naturalism is the Kinesin33. The kinesin is which, if it can perhaps be understood to a sort of micro-robotic lacky which walks permit old-earth scenarios, cannot without up and down microtubule highways on two rude discomfort accommodate evolution globular feet, hauling things many times and the survival of the fittest. But I am its size from one place to another within not concerned with that here. It is the the cell. second obstacle which I wish to ponder; We all know about DNA, but most are not and that is, the illogic of evolution and aware of the fact that the “junk” DNA evolutionary descriptions of origins. predicted by evolutionists like Philip Kitcher In these articles I have tried to pinpoint have been shown up to be false, while the several logical errors in standard predictions of creationist and intelligent evolutionary ideas. I have shown that design advocates that there would be without the biblical God to ensure that the hardly any surplus has been verified. Here future will be like the past the whole is a articulate description of DNA: scientific edifice teeters upon the fallacy of Everyone agrees on how DNA begging the question. I have shown functions; it is a system for coding several other incoherences along the and storing information. The way. Still another one is provided by information is the specific makeup of Hunter when he explains about the use of proteins that the cell manufactures predictions to fortify a theory which is as well as for retrieving that wrong. He gives the example of Ptolemy information and sending it to the and observes, protein-making factories in the In fact, the idea that an evidence cell. But if what it stores is proves a theory is a logical fallacy information, then the message known as affirming the cannot itself be a property of the consequent. So we need to be system. For example the English careful when using predictions to behind the words on this page evaluate the truth value of a doesn’t come from the paper and ink theory.32 that carry the words, it comes for me and not from the paper. In the This second problem of incoherence will same way, the information doesn’t only intensify over time. The tide is come from the DNA or the chemicals turning. Design and Information-theory that make it up and this means that are pressing their claims. One such something imposed the information designed marvel which was discovered on the DNA and the natural process using the tools of science, but fully can’t do that because natural detectable without methodological

33 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/video/ 32 Science’s Blind Spot, 74. 2014/05/the-workhorse-of-the-cell-kinesin-2/ www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 20 of 22 The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins

process just works by the properties The onset of the computer age has put of the things involved and Information on the map as a third aspect information transcends these of reality which must be contended properties.34 with. A worldview that ignores the science of information or that cannot account for The information is even stored on smaller information at the most rudimentary level “files” within larger “files” just like on our of existence is not a coherent account of computers. It is irrational to put this down the world. Indeed, Bruce Alberts, former to undirected non-teleological forces. President of the National Academy of Energy must be controlled and directed to Sciences in the U.S. has said that scientists achieve particular goals and complete will have to take design courses in order to certain tasks, often entailing detailed help them comprehend what is being specificity. This is to say, in every instance uncovered. we have observed it requires a code and Everyone knows that matter is the main finely-tuned constants to produce complex vehicle for information. But as Varghese specific characteristics such as we see all rightly asks, around us in the world, from How did it become a vehicle for photosynthesis to DNA and a thousand codes and blueprints? We know it instances beside. Our increasing takes intelligence to decode the awareness of this fact, in tandem with information transmitted by what is now known of the amazing matter. But if decoding requires complexity and breathtaking precision of intelligence, how about the living systems has brought the concept encoding? If information exists prior of information center-stage. to matter, what is its source?35 To give just one example: Every cell contains at least 10,000,000,000,000 bits A little earlier he notices that Noam of information. It contains the whole code Chomsky says that human language needed to build the organism of which it is cannot come from animal communication a part! It contains factories and systems because of the presence of distribution systems which make two syntactical and semantic rules (Ibid, thousand proteins every second! It would 417). Indeed, anyone who knows take (at time of writing) a supercomputer anything about the languages of the ancient world is aware of the fact that the 10 to the 127th power (10 followed by 127 zeroes) years to achieve what real proteins further back one goes, the more complicated the languages become. do inseconds in terms of generation! And we are supposed to believe matter and Professor Werner Gitt, former Head of the motion and the laws of physics evolved it? Dept. of Information Technology at the

German Federal Institute of Physics & a recognized expert on chaos theory. The Technology, has said, “Information author’s also note that naturalistic science originates as a language; it is first cannot explain the presence of information formulated, and then transmitted or in systems. They cite approvingly the stored.” – In The Beginning Was words of Overman who said, “The Information, 60. paradigms for the emergence of life are algorithms which must contain at least as Dr Gitt’s presents a set of scientific much information content as the genetic Theorems in his book, among which is this messages they claim to generate.” (Ibid, one: 299).

Here we encounter the issue of “Garbage Theorem 23: There is no known natural law In=Garbage Out”. To put it more through which matter can give rise to positively, nothing can arise from a thing information, neither is any physical process that does not already have this property in or material phenomenon known that can do it, or the power to produce it. As this. – Ibid, 80. Varghese quips, “a collection of…systems can only produce what is collectively Further down the page he comments: present in them. Rocks can produce Any natural law can be rejected the pebbles, but not flowers or minds.”37 moment a single counter example is No, nor can the blind watchmaker make found, and this also holds for these anything but debris. Calling evolution the information theorems. After many blind watchmaker is like calling Richard talks by the author at colleges and Dawkins mute opera singer. It too is universities, both abroad and at incoherent!38 home, no researcher could mention one single counter example.

In their essay entitled “Complexity, Chaos and God,” Wesley Allen and Henry Schaefer state that,

Complexity theory views the essence Source: SpiritAndTruth.org of life as independent of its particular physical medium, consistent with Christian belief.36

37 The Wonder of the World, 131. Schaefer is one of the most oft quoted 38 Portions of this article are taken from an scientists in the academic literature and is exchange with an atheist a few years ago. Citation of an author does 36 Darwin’s Nemesis, ed. William A. Dembski, not necessarily mean endorsement of their 300. work. www.SpiritAndTruth.org © 2014 Paul Henebury 22 of 22