- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (6/27)
- Next Post »A La Carte (6/28)
Intelligent Design
- 06/27/07
- 33
This isn’t a book review. Though I often refer to a particular book, I mean this more as a series of statements on intelligent design. The concept of intelligent design has undeniable appeal. Forming a kind of middle ground between creationism and evolution, it claims to reconcile the claims of modern science with what seems so obvious to so many—that there is an intelligent force or being in the universe that has guided the design of this universe. Michael Behe is considered a leader within the intelligent design movement and, along with Phillip Johnson, one of its founding fathers. His first book, Darwin’s Black Box, was much maligned by scientists, yet intrigued and captivated many people, including many Christians. In that book, Behe claimed that at a biochemical level, many structures at the very foundation of life are irreducibly complex—they cannot have evolved by random chance but must, therefore, be the product of an intelligent designer. The scientific community largely criticized Behe’s efforts, suggesting that he was simply taking advantage of the ignorance of the general reader when it comes to issues such as biochemistry and genetics. They consider him little more than a rogue scientist and a thinly-veiled creationist who attempts to maintain some level of scientific integrity. In the words of Richard Dawkins, “He’s a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity…”
In his latest book, The Edge of Evolution, Behe, still holding firm to his belief in irreducible complexity, goes looking for the edge, the border between what can be accounted for on the basis of random mutation and what cannot. He looks for the division between what could evolve and what must have required the intervention of a designer.
To understand Behe’s argument, the reader must be willing to delineate three separate ideas that together form Darwin’s theory of evolution: random mutation, natural selection and common descent. When most people think of evolution, they think primarily of random descent—that all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. Yet this idea accounts only for the similarities in creatures, not their differences. To account for differences one must look to random mutation and natural selection. After all, we would expect that everything stemming from a common ancestor would bear great similarities. Since this is evidently not the case something must have intervened to create such striking differences between plants and animals, mammals and reptiles, mice and elephants. Here the evolutionist proposes the combination of mutation and selection. Natural selection is, on the face of it, quite innocuous as it merely suggests that organisms which are more fit will produce more offspring that organisms that are less fit. On its own this is evident. Thus the heart of the Darwinian theory is the role of mutation—that certain organisms become stronger or more fit because of random mutations. Until these mutations occur, random selection can do nothing. But once these mutations occur, natural selection separates the stronger organisms, those that have undergone beneficial mutations, from the weak, those that have remained the same or that have undergone harmful mutations.
Because these concepts are unrelated, they must be considered independently rather than as a whole. It may well be that creationists are guilty of sometimes grouping these together and condemning them as a group rather than understanding and critiquing them individually. To write off natural selection in the same way we might write off random mutation is not entirely fair. In his book Behe summarizes what he considers the rational positions based on modern science and these positions would be shared by the majority of proponents of intelligent design. They are as follows: there is compelling evidence for common descent; there is good evidence that random mutation paired with natural selection can modify life in important ways; there is strong evidence that random mutation is extremely limited. Thus Behe and other intelligent design advocates grant common ancestry and natural selection, and grant that mutation coupled with selection can change life. But where they typically draw the line is at the power of random mutation and natural selection. This, Behe says, has been greatly oversold to the public. And so the purpose of his latest book is “to cut through the fog, to offer a sober appraisal of what Darwinian processes can and cannot do, and to find what I call the edge of evolution.” He attempts to define a set of guidelines that will mark the furthest extent of what Darwinian evolution can account for.
As he begins to delimit the edge of evolution, Behe proposes two criteria by which to judge whether random mutation combined with natural selection is a reasonable explanation for a molecular phenomenon. First, he speaks of steps and says that the more intermediate evolutionary steps needed to achieve a biological goal, the less likely it is to be adequately explained in Darwinian terms. If it is but one step from the beginning to the end, it is possible that random mutation can account for this step. But if it is eight or ten steps, it is far less likely. Second, he speaks of coherence suggesting that a telltale sign of planning is the ordering of steps towards a particular goal whereas random mutation is, by its very nature, incoherent. Thus if we see that there must be a series of coherent, necessary steps from the beginning to the end, we realize it is unlikely that random mutation can be the driving force. Behe arrives at the obvious conclusion that “the molecular developmental program to build an animal must consist of many discrete steps and be profoundly coherent.” Thus many animal forms have necessarily been designed. But to what degree?
He finally comes to the moment of truth where he must attempt to define the outer edge of Darwinian evolution. “[We] can conclude that animal design probably extends into life at least as far as vertebrate classes, maybe deeper, and that random mutation likely explains differences at least up to the species level, perhaps somewhat beyond. Somewhere between the level of vertebrate species and class lies the organismal edge of Darwinian evolution.” Combining this book with Darwin’s Black Box, then, we are left to see that the major “architectural features of life—molecular machinery, cells, genetic circuitry, and probably more—are purposely designed.” But the architectural constraints leave room beyond this for plenty of variation and adaptation.
The reader is then left wondering in what ways this intelligent force interacts with the world and how it acts as designer. Here Behe has little to offer, though he does offer the information that he is a fairly traditional Roman Catholic and that, in his view, this designer is God, but a God who functions much like a watchmaker, setting the world in motion and then stepping back to let it run its course. “Those who worry about ‘interference’ should relax. The purposeful design of life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of natural laws.” He is careful, though, to point out that one does not to believe in God, or the God of the Bible, to accept intelligent design. The evidence of design is, after all, visible in every area of nature. Whether or not a person accepts that there is a God, he must come up with some concept of a designer. Thus Behe’s understanding of intelligent design is perfectly compatible with the idea of universal common descent. But it is entirely incompatible with Darwin’s mechanism of evolution—random variation and natural selection. Other leading advocates of intelligent design are evangelical Christians that span the range of denominations.
Now I’ll be honest and say that I very much enjoyed reading this book. I am no scientist and parts of it went way over my head, but on the whole I felt I was able to follow and to understand Behe’s argument. Yet I must disagree with him and with other intelligent design advocates in several areas.
For all his talk and affirmation of common descent, Behe, with other intelligent design proponents, is unable to provide a single convincing example of anything of the sort. Watching countless thousands of generations of various organisms has yielded only other like organisms. There have been plenty of examples of seemingly random mutation, but nothing that has yielded anything materially different from the sort. Science has still been unable to show that one organism can become another. After countless iterations, Malaria is still Malaria; a fly is still a fly; a monkey is still a monkey. He gives no new or compelling evidence of macro-evolution. Thus I have to reject common ancestry as an evolutionary myth that is completely at odds with the biblical account of creation. With Behe, as with so many scientists, common descent is assumed but unproven. They grant Darwin that one, major point and then argue on the ones that are less significant.
Behe’s conclusions regarding the person or nature of the designer are entirely unsatisfactory and it seemed that he was perhaps unwilling to pay the cost of declaring that God, and only God, could be the designer. This is typical for the intelligent design movement as few people are really willing to take a stand on this point. As a committed Catholic Behe must believe that God is the designer. Why, then, would he give such leeway to believe it could be any other force? And how, as a Catholic, could he suggest that God is now watching the world from afar as it runs its course on the basis of natural laws. When he does attempt to address difficult issues, he still falls short. Though he affirms that we have to conclude that something as nefarious as Malaria was intentionally designed, he does not draw satisfactory conclusions about the kind of designer who would design such a thing. Finally, he does not adequately interact with just how random something can be when we live in a universe over which God claims complete mastery. Related to this, Behe gave little guidance on just how the designer interacts with the creation. How does this person or force function as designer today? Does he simply make the mutations happen that are otherwise mathematically impossible? Or does he express his will in some other way? Behe’s long argument leads to a designer but then drops the ball in actually describing that designer.
So while I certainly do not agree with those who hold forth intelligent design as an explanation of the origin of the species (I am and remain a young earth creationist), I do enjoy reading these efforts and I do benefit from them. It is breathtaking to read descriptions of things so far beyond what the eye can see. It is awe-inspiring to see how fearfully and wonderfully we have been made. The creative genius of God is beyond what we can fathom and even our best attempts to explain and understand inevitably fall far short.
As the evolutionary camp fractures into various factions, and as evidence continues to mount proving that the theory is rife with scientific and logical inconsistencies, those who believe in the the biblical account of the world’s creation would do well to read such books and to learn from them. They must be read with caution and discernment, but when read carefully they can unearth a wealth of information that looks at the very building blocks of life and shows the hand of the creator as clearly there as anywhere else. Look to even the tiniest components and there you’ll see the hand of the creator, there you’ll human depravity, and there you’ll see further proof of the existence and sovereignty of God.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (33)
Regardless of what man tries to do…the truth still remains…
that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
i wonder if there is a way to use the intelligent design movement for good. it certainly is a step up from believing in darwinian evolution, and allows for the possibility of a Creator. i would think this could be really beneficial - not in saving souls, but getting people a little bit closer, their minds and hearts more open. it’s disappointing that it doesn’t come across that way; and perhaps it isn’t possible to do it well if you don’t go all the way and say “God created the universe because the bible says he did.” i’m not sure.
As near as I can understand, there’s much more evidence for a very old earth than there is for humanity being very old. Is it possible that there was earth (but not necessarily even plant life) before the days of creation in Genesis 1? I’m not sure. I am aware that when Adam was created, he must have had apparent age. In the same way, earth may have apparent age. What I know by faith is that the Lord created the heavens and the earth, and that Genesis is true, whether or not I understand all of it correctly.
Jim (#3),
Appreciated your comment about faith at the end.
One question I’ve had (and heard others ask) is if God created Adam in the prime of maturity, as he did, why cannot the earth be young in terms of years but “old” in its maturity?
The problem you seem to be ignoring is that Behe’s Intelligent Design is not a theory.
It is refuted in detail from every angle by the facts.
I do at least admire your honesty if you hold your views based on “the bible” and state this openly rather than telling fibs about scientifically established facts.
Tim,
As usual, I really appreciated your even-handed, yet Biblical approach to a difficult subject. Thank you for your thoughts.
David
Tim (or anyone else),
Do you have a good book recommendation on young earth creationism? I’m sorry, but everything I’ve read (mostly articles) on the subject always leave me thinking that on this one issue, for some reason, Christians are always checking their brain at the door. I don’t understand how people can buy young earth creationism. Unless I have missed something, the arguments are so flimsy as to deny comprehension. It makes me want to slap my forehead and ask, “What has become of my reasonable, well-thought brothers?!”
I would love to hear if there is something out there that makes a solid biblical case for creationism without me having to swallow the “The dinosaur bones were there when the earth was created” line. Geeeeeeez (forehead slap).
Hi Tim,
Whilst I respect many of your points, I still struggle to understand the common argument used by many Christians that a process which involves randomness cannot be the actions of a creative God. My belief in a sovereign God makes me believe that random processes are all the intentional acts of a creative God whose ways are beyond my understanding. I believe that snowflakes are random, yet I also believe they are formed with infinite attention from God. Now, this still falls a long way short of convincing me of the veracity of macro-evolution, but it makes me suspicious of most of the alternatives I have heard suggested.
“One question I’ve had (and heard others ask) is if God created Adam in the prime of maturity, as he did, why cannot the earth be young in terms of years but “old” in its maturity?”
I see this as a persuasive argument but many do not. They say this would make God a liar (if He created things to appear to be older than they truly are). The one problem I don’t think old-earth creationists can get away from is that in their view there must have been death before the Fall. And I just don’t see that.
“I still struggle to understand the common argument used by many Christians that a process which involves randomness cannot be the actions of a creative God.”
Because, quite simply, if God is entirely sovereign, than nothing in all of history and eternity is truly random. Everything is guided by God’s hand, even such seemingly random things as rolling dice.
“It is refuted in detail from every angle by the facts.”
I think that would be overstating the argument…
“Do you have a good book recommendation on young earth creationism?”
There really isn’t a lot I can think of off-hand. MacArthur’s “Battle for the Beginning” at least provides the theological importance of hold to a young earth (and does a good job of it). It also happens to be the first book I ever reviewed.
BCM,I’ve never heard the claim that “The dinosaur bones were there when the earth was created.” That would be absurd indeed. The claim of young earth creationists is that, as has already been stated, that the earth, like Adam, was created in a mature state.
It may very well require millions of years for various geological features to form, but it also takes a couple of decades grow a man, and yet, there Adam was, fully mature on his first day of life. So anyone who believes the Biblical account of Adam’s creation has no problem believing the Biblical account of the earth’s creation.
We believe, as the Bible says, that dinosaurs were created at the same time as all creatures were created. Unless you buy into the very dubious dating methods of evolutionists, you should have no trouble with that at all.
Anyone
As one who believes in the Genesis account of creation and debates the point with friends and co-workers I would be very interested in where I might find out more about these dubious carbon dating methods. How are they exposed as false?Thanks
Tim, Many scientists in the Intelligent Design community do not subscribe or agree with common descent while others like Behe do believe in common descent. My experience is Behe and others like him are in a large minority and belief in common descent is not required in order to identify as someone who believes in intelligent design. I would like to understand what the main difference is between Behe and Francis Collin’s theistic evolutionary view? Any idea? Great review!
Do you have a good book recommendation on young earth creationism?
I have one…the Bible.
Behe didn’t really have the goal of identifying the designer. To do so goes beyond the science of Intelligent Design. Also, I think that Behe employed a brilliant rhetorical strategy towards the end. In pointing out that the malaria bug is both malevolent and designed, he highlighted the problem of evil as something that *must* be wrestled with on a philosophical or theological level. He outright accuses the Darwinists of being squeamish and burying their head in the sand for being unwilling to face what is essentially the self-evident designedness *and* the self-evident fallenness of the world. He throws down the gauntlet and says in no uncertain terms that philosophical or theological squeamishness is a poor excuse for accepting a non-sensical theory. In essence he is saying “Darwinism is for people who can’t handle the stark facts of reality”. By doing this he turns the tables on the usual accusations against religion as being unwilling to “face facts”.
David writes: “We believe, as the Bible says, that dinosaurs were created at the same time as all creatures were created.”
The Bible mentions dinosaurs? The reason we know dinosaurs existed is due to the scientific discovery of their bones (not because the Bible informed us of them). And, since you accept the scientific discovery of these bones, it seems inconsistent to then reject the scientific assessment of their age, which, of course, puts the age of dinosaurs far before the Creationist story of a 6000-year-old earth.
Accepting the parts of science that can be fit into a Biblical narrative while rejecting the parts that don’t fit — well, that seems to be rather disengenuous, isn’t it?
“Why, then, would he give such leeway to believe it could be any other force? And how, as a Catholic, could he suggest that God is now watching the world from afar as it runs its course on the basis of natural laws.”
Book Sales??
“Do you have a good book recommendation on young earth creationism?”
I can recommend a few books as I preached through Genesis 1-12:4 last year.
“Refuting Compromise” by Jonathan Sarfati-Sarfati is way-too-smart - he can play chess with 12 people while blindfolded (picture of him playing if you scroll down on a wikipedia article about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati) The book is semi-technical and polemical in nature against progressive creationism (ie day-age theory), but gives some of the best young earth creationist arguments available.
“The Answers Book” by Ham, Snelling and Wieland is a good all purpose young earth creation book that answers a number of common questions (ie where did Cain get his wife?, How did starlight travel 6 gazillion light years in 6000 years?, etc.) Ken Ham is the person who just opened the big creation museum in Kentucky. (actually in suburban Cincinnati but Canadian media seem to prefer to say Kentucky because it sounds more southern backwoods Bible belt - no offense to any Kentuckians out there I think you’re OK! - By the way is Kentuckian what you say? Or Kentuckite, or Kentuck - kind of like Canuck for Canadian? just curious).
“One Blood” is an interesting book by Ham, Wieland & Batten that explains why racism makes no sense from a Biblical and scientific point of view. If I remember right, it uses dogs to illustrate how animals reproduce after their kind (everything from German Shepherd to Poodle), but not outside their kind and explains natural selection using a simplified explanation of how DNA works that I have found very helpful - for example explains why Cain could marry his sister (or Abraham his half-sister) and have kids without causing the genetic problems that we would face today.
I have found the www.answersingenesis.org website very helpful as it has a huge amount of information. Another interesting one is www.worldwideflood.com which has a tool that compares Noah’s ark with several other ships - including a huge ancient Chinese sailing ship - very cool! - shows that building a stable wooden ship that big was possible in the ancient world.
Finally, John MacArthur has a set of messages that friend lent me (something like 40+ messages) that goes through Genesis - I think the book that Tim mentioned by MacArthur is based on part of that series. The series is excellent and encouraged me greatly!
Hope all this is helpful.
God bless.
And thanks Tim for your encouragement everyday via this blog and for this article today about Intelligent Design!
A few other notes which came to mind:
1. It might be worth reading eccentric arguments in favor of evolution (e.g. Crick, Gee, Sheldrake) to see the ridiculous lengths evolutionists themselves will go to defend evolution. After all, Crick believed in designated panspermia rather than concede God might have created life. In other words, technologically advanced aliens seeding Earth eons ago is a more viable option for him than God and creationism.
2. Related to this, keep in mind there’s a fair bit of internecine warfare among atheistic naturalistic evolutionists. And not over insignificant issues.
3. In one sense, theistic evolution stands or fall on the truth or falsehood of evolution. Rather than merely looking at it from the standpoint of “it’s possible God used evolution,” we need to take a step back, and ask ourselves whether evolution in the first place is true.
4. I’d recommend Naturalism Defeated? by Alvin Plantinga et al. These are essays critiquing Plantinga’s argument against naturalistic evolution. Atthe end, Plantinga says something like, “My argument is bloodied, but unbowed.” (NB: Plantinga is a theistic evolutionist.)
5. Del Ratzsch’s books Science and Its Limits and Nature, Design, and Science are worth reading primarily because they deal with the scope and limitations of modern science.
6. Regarding Young Earth Creationism, Kurt Wise’s Faith, Form, and Time is a good place to start.
7. For better or for worse, there’s a whirlwind of controversy surrounding Russell Humphreys’ Starlight and Time. I’ve not read it, so can’t comment, but Young Earth Creationists seem to cite it fairly frequently.
“I would like to understand what the main difference is between Behe and Francis Collin’s theistic evolutionary view? Any idea?”
From what I’ve been told, both cover the same ground and come to the same conclusions, so there’s little if any difference in their new books (with regard to the scientific material as well as the use of the same as supporting argumentation for theistic evolution).
“Accepting the parts of science that can be fit into a Biblical narrative while rejecting the parts that don’t fit — well, that seems to be rather disengenuous [sic], isn’t it?”
I can’t speak for others, but I can speak for myself.
Generally speaking, it works the other way for the Christian who is a Biblicist — which is what I consider myself. That is, first and foremost, I attempt to understand the Bible as the original author intended the original audience to understand it, and the scientific evidence must be taken in, weighed, and understood in light of what the Bible teaches rather than the other way around. The latter informs the former, not vice versa (primarily).
Perhaps another but related way to look at this distinction (although it may be a bit naive) is to ask whether special revelation or natural revelation should have the preeminence? For me, it’d be the Bible.
I said, “I still struggle to understand the common argument used by many Christians that a process which involves randomness cannot be the actions of a creative God.”
Tim replied “if God is entirely sovereign, than nothing in all of history and eternity is truly random. Everything is guided by God’s hand, even such seemingly random things as rolling dice.”
My point is that scientific explanations for things are correct in using the term ‘randomness’ (which follows strict laws), whilst a theological explanation is correct in saying that everything is guided by God’s hand. I (fortunately) haven’t heard of scientists trying to find the action of God in guiding a die as the whole process is God acting.
Because, quite simply, if God is entirely sovereign, than nothing in all of history and eternity is truly random. Everything is guided by God’s hand, even such seemingly random things as rolling dice.
Tim,
And yet, we Christians still use “randomness” concepts in some sense when we think about things like dice, even though we know God is guiding even the “random” things. That is, we talk about dice being “fair” dice or not—and judge the fairness based on the odds. We flip coins and if it doesn’t come out heads close to half the time, we conclude that the coin is weighted. If a poker player gets too many good hands, we may suspect “non-random” or fixed shuffling & dealing. We don’t object to statistical analysis to determine whether the result are reasonable. (And for that matter, the physicists among us talk about “random” collapse of wave-functions.) Etc.
In other words, the sovereign hand of God typically acts behind the veil, and there is some sense in which we can still talk about probability.
So what is to prevent a Christian from supposing that mutation is “random” in the sense that it happens according to some kind of probability distribution—that there is no physical mechanism that directs mutations toward goals—while knowing that everything that does happen happens according to the sovereignty of God? Why can’t a Christian say that the non-randomness is behind the veil, even as with dice, cards, and coins?
If you are going to apply this argument consistently, wouldn’t you have to deny all sorts of every-day things, like “You’re more likely to roll a 7 than any other combination of two dice”?
Can a Christian be an actuary?
Tim”Because, quite simply, if God is entirely sovereign, than nothing in all of history and eternity is truly random. Everything is guided by God’s hand, even such seemingly random things as rolling dice.”
I find this hard to take - everything is guided by God’s hand? Natural disasters? Diseases like AIDS or flu pandemics? The actions of men?
If everything is guided by God’s hand, its too easy to say evil and suffering are God’s will, and I just don’t see that as consistant with the life or message of Jesus. If that’s what your God is like, it is no wonder so many people find Him hard to believe in…
David,
Thank you for making my point. You’re suggesting, of course, that Adam and T-Rex coexisted. I wonder whether, if we took the time to study carbon dating, we would be less inclined to check our brains at the door on this question. I’m even less willing to buy into young earth creationism if it requires that I believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth sometime in the last 10,000 years. No wonder so many people view Christians as close-minded anti-intellectualists.
Voice of the Sheep,
Thanks for the helpful tip. If everyone was as helpful as you (sarcasm drips) there would be so much more understanding and intelligent conversation.
Why is it that so few evangelicals are willing to reckon with the genre of Genesis 1? This is not a science book or a history book. Is it not abundantly clear that this is a poem about God’s involvement in the creation of all things? Why do we feel such a pressing need to take Gen. 1 to be a scientific explanation of “how it all happened”? I constantly wonder whether Moses would have said to young earth creationists: “No, no, no, that’s not what I was trying to do. I don’t know exactly ‘how it happened.’ All I was trying to do was state, in lyrical form, that God is responsible for the generation of all things.”
I’ll stop rambling. Didn’t mean to ruffle feathers. I’m just an evangelical who loves the sovereignty and wisdom of God, and the authority of the Bible, but who is frustrated by the widespread anti-intellectualism of the church.
You’re suggesting, of course, that Adam and T-Rex coexisted.
Of course I am. What else can I do, being “anti-intellectual” and having “checked my brains at the door”? Silly me, I do believe Genesis is an historical book—along with countless theologians throughout history who know far more than I about literary genre and hermeneutics.
While I put theology before science, I do what to be scientifically honest. Just because an argument supports my theological views doesn’t mean its sound. Unfortunately Christians are all to ready to believe conspiracy theories that other Christians claim about what science shows and is.
Theologically there seems to be no doubt, the broad scientific explanation of evolution does not fit with the bible, eg. regarding death before the fall. On the other hand, through looking at what scientists actually say, I am convinced that scientifically evolution is an excellent theory. I have no problem about talking of the fact of evolution, in the scientific meaning of ‘fact’ that it is extremely well supported by the evidence.
I don’t know how to resolve this tension, and I don’t try. We can be confident through radiometric dating techniques using isochrons (whose limited assumptions are well tested) and other arguments that the earth indicates old age, especially in comparison to the much shorter time periods of YEC. Maybe it isn’t actually old, after all we can’t even scientifically disprove the idea that God created the world last Thursday, but scientifically it does appear old.
As for Behe, his arguments amount to a God of the gaps argument based on gaps in scientific knowledge that don’t really exist. Scientists keep working on the details of evolution, and there are disagreements and ideas that change, but overall there is no reason to suppose that random mutations (the scientific definition of ‘random’ allows for the possibility of a higher cause), natural selection, genetic drift etc. can’t account for all biological diversity.
For what it’s worth, if anything, here’s one possible argument against (Christian) theistic evolution:
According to the theory of evolution, why couldn’t future man be materially different from present day or modern man, such that he is no longer distinguishable from modern man (by “materially,” I include genetic and biochemical differences which may or may not manifest themselves physically)? As far as I can tell, it’s possible according to evolution.
And perhaps as a result of such differences, why couldn’t future man differ markedly from modern man in other ways? Maybe future man will have a different psychological makeup and emotional life, for instance, and thus be subject to and experience different temptations, sufferings, etc. than what modern man experiences.
What I’m getting at is that it’s possible Christ himself might not share with future man what he shares with modern man. It’s possible Christ would no longer be “one of us” in the sense that he would no longer be able to share in future man’s “humanity,” assuming future man can at least still be considered part of the mammalian species homo sapien. (Of course, if future man is so different that he can no longer be classified as a homo sapien, then that raises other questions.) This would undercut Scripture (e.g. Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15-16).
In other words, if it’s possible for man to evolve into something different than he is today — whether it’s only a slight difference or whether it’s as jarringly dissimilar as depicted in a movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey (in which man is a different species) — then what would that make Christ in his incarnation as a man? On the evolutionary tree of life, modern man, and therefore Christ himself since he came as a modern man, could very well be to future man what an ape-man might be to us. Evolutionarily speaking, Christ in his incarnation would be a different being than future man. I’ll not mince words: as far as I can tell, it’s possible that the evolutionary equivalent of an ape-man might have died for your sins.
I should mention Jeremy Pierce has interacted with what I’ve written (see here). (And that I’d like to follow-up with him on a few points.)
More importantly, Steve Hays has posted a review of a recent book against ID by philosopher Philip Kitcher. The comments by Steve et al in the combox are also worth reading.
Patrick,
Hmm…I don’t see much to that argument. It boils down to, “By the theory of evolution, it’s possible that our descendants could become very different from modern humans—different enough that they couldn’t partake of Christ. It doesn’t say it must happen, but it’s possible. Since it doesn’t eliminate the possibility, that’s a problem for theistic evolutionists.”
That doesn’t make sense to me. If God is sovereign, He can prevent us from evolving in any way He doesn’t want.
Maybe future man will have a different psychological makeup and emotional life
True enough. But, even if you’re an Arminian, God should have been able to look down that corridor of time and make sure that Christ could save those future men. As a Calvinist, I’d say that God’s overall plan included both the current and future men and thus Christ would die for the elect from both species.
For that matter, what if there are other intelligent species currently on the earth? (Dolphins, etc.) I’m sure if there are, and if they have fallen and require salvation, God has worked that into His plan as well.
Thanks Tim M. and Gary for your responses. Mind if I offer a reply?
Tim M. said:
That doesn’t make sense to me. If God is sovereign, He can prevent us from evolving in any way He doesn’t want.
The problem here is that this is an ad hoc response. If God can “prevent us from evolving in any way He doesn’t want,” then is evolution even required in the first place? If God can “prevent us from evolving in any way He doesnt’ want,” then God could also have created us without recourse to evolution. In other words, you’re accepting the principle in order to restrict it. If God is sovereign and can do anything (which I, too, fully accept), then why evolution? Why not something else? What you’ve said can “work” for almost any problem or objection raised. Again, it’s an ad hoc response.
Gary said:
True enough. But, even if you’re an Arminian, God should have been able to look down that corridor of time and make sure that Christ could save those future men. As a Calvinist, I’d say that God’s overall plan included both the current and future men and thus Christ would die for the elect from both species.
Of course, this misses what I was trying to argue. My point is that there must be sufficient continuity between the human nature of Christ and human beings for Christ to redeem them.
For that matter, what if there are other intelligent species currently on the earth? (Dolphins, etc.) I’m sure if there are, and if they have fallen and require salvation, God has worked that into His plan as well.
The first problem is that this implies that dolphins (or whatever other earthbound species you might have in mind) are not only able to sin and fall but in fact are fallen and in need of redemption.
Assuming dolphins are fallen, it further implies that unless Christ became incarnate as a dolphin, a fallen species like dolphins can be saved apart from the Son of God’s incarnation. Which in turn would lead to questions such as, how are fallen dolphins redeemed? Are they forgiven by penal substitution? Christ our Savior must in some (but not all) respects be the same kind of being as those for whom he makes atonement.
And if there’s more than one species on our planet which Christ came to redeem, then how can he forever be a man as the Bible teaches? The only possible responses I can see are eisegetical responses.
I missed a good one here, huh?I do have some pretty extensive experience in this subject, so I’ll offer my 2 cents, for what it’s worth..
1)ID (intelligent design) is very immature as a scientific study. It took nearly 100 years for Darwinian Evolution to gain any traction in scientific circles, and it did so based on pretty solid evidence. If ID is grounded in solid evidence, it would still take quite a while and a good many fights for it to really solidify.
2)A Young Earth (YE) is considered ridiculous by the majority of even Christian geologists (secular scientists who happen to be Christians). Even if the Bible required that the earth be young (I don’t believe it does), the evidence is to strong in the opposite direction to conclude otherwise, at least for the purposes of rightly interpreting the data (which is a scientists job).
3)Some have suggested that God created an earth (like he did with Adam) with apparent age, or a faux maturity. That’s plausible (yet for a God who does nothing without a purpose, it seems entirely unnecessary). However, apparent age is much different than apparent history. For Adam to have a belly button, for instance, would have been deceitful because it gave the impression that he was born. A tree with rings, would again be indicative of yearly growth (which never happened). Not to mention that neither of these things are ever mentioned in Scripture. We have no problem saying that God wouldn’t put dino fossils in the ground, when no such dinosaurs ever existed. That would be purposefully deceitful.
Likewise, I don’t believe that an honest God would let us observe the remnants of a supernova that never happened. Think about it, if a star is 300 million light years away, that means that for us to see that star, it’s light had to leave 300 million years ago. Some may say that God created the light “on its way”, but there is no such evidence for that, and stacks of evidence against it. But I digress. The light from a nebula has to follow the same rules. For us to see a nebula (or a supernova in action) AND the earth be only 6,000 years old, then one would have to conclude that we are seeing light from a historical occurrence that never actually happened. That, to me, is quite deceitful.
As for the YEC arguments about the speed of light, they are dubious at best, and outright presumptuous and rhetorical at worst. For people who slam evolutionists for their “presumptions” all the time, it seems a bit hypocritical to engage in the same practice, only when it serves to support your own worldview.
I hope there are people still on this board. I’d like to get some feedback on what most of you would conclude about science and faith as well.
Hi Nathan,
Sorry, I’ve not checked this post in a few days. In fact, since it’s already getting pretty old, I doubt I’ll check it again. If you’re interested in the topic, though, check out our weblog, Triablogue, where we’ve been discussing evolution, etc. Here are a couple of a recent posts: 1. 2.
Patrick