Oversimplification - STOP IT!!!

Romans 1:18-23
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

We too often sit back on this verse, look at evolutionary scientists and say (to ourselves at least) "He chooses to reject God and embrace evolution as his god. He will get what he deserves."

We need to look at what else the Apostle Paul said, "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." If we want to engage the men and women in the scientific community we have to be able to speak at their level. If Paul had not been schooled in oration and liberally educated, he could never have gained the attention of the men of Athens. If we cannot speak to evolutionary biologist in without inflammatory terms and with scientific research they will respect, then we cannot reach them at all.

I have been searching the internet to find creation focused research on the platypus genetic code. The gene code of the platypus has been revealed and there are a number of interesting findings. The platypus shares features in its code which are similar in nature to the genetic codes of mammals, birds and reptiles. The internet is replete with articles concerning the discovery and its meaning to biology and our understanding of evolution. However, I cannot find a single creation focused article that has anywhere near the scientific rigor or even level of writing that would allow me to challenge the basic conclusion that the platypus DNA has provided further evidence of how mammals, reptiles and birds branched from common ancestors millions of years ago. WHY?

Instead, I find creation focused articles written at the eighth grade level that simplify the issue and blithely point to the Biblical God of creation and say what a beautiful thing His creation is. Although I agree with their points, where is the research? Where is the argument? WHERE IS THE SCIENCE? Articles are filled with inflammatory terms assigning evolutionary biologists to the realm of false teachers. I find it hard to believe that this is the intent of the authors of these articles and I certainly hope it is not. But the result is we are only reaching those who believe. Creation science preaches to the choir, which is why we are losing court cases and frankly, by my estimation, losing the scientific argument.

If we are to engage the scientific world, then we have to enter it, and like Paul, we have to speak their language. So, stop making it so simple, it's not. The issues and facts that matter in modern science are complex and intellectually challenging. The platypus is a "hodgepodge" animal, having several traits of different classes of animals. Evolutionists say this is prima facia evidence of evolution at work. Creationists, say, no, such a mix would never result from evolutionary processes. Who's comparing the paleontological record to the genetic record? Where is the study of why mammals need IgG and IgE, but birds need IgY to handle certain enzyme functions and why does the platypus have the mammalian set, when it's sex determining genetics are so much more like a bird. When you get into the details, the facts get a lot more confusing and the conclusion regarding a Creation versus Evolution is not so clear cut. I don't know if it's possible to have a truly unbiased approach to details like platypus DNA, but we have to at least start dealing with it at a post-graduate level if we ever hope to converse with the scientific community about it.

Will the details of biology, genetics and origin research challenge your beliefs? I hope so. If they don't then you aren't looking deep enough.

Evolution is a Scientific Fact

To my evangelical brothers, don't throw your stones yet. I have not abandoned God's word and subscribed to belief in darwinism or theistic evolution. However, I am tired of hearing how "Evolution" is not a scientific fact, that it's only a "theory". If you are still buying that argument, then you haven't been reading the scientific articles or talking to the biologists lately. Evolution has become so accepted by the scientific community that it is considered a fundamental property of living things. In the Wikipedia definition, "Adaptation" is listed above "Reproduction" in the properties of living things. The eBook, PhysicalGeography.net, Chapter 9(a) "Origin and Definition of Life" uses an essay from molecular biologist Daniel E. Koshland Jr. who lists the ability to evolve as life's second highest characteristic (after reproduction).

These are not isolated examples. Any serious reading of biology texts and articles will quickly reveal that evolution has become a foundational principle to the entire science. What the creation community needs is to wake up to this fact and meet it with scientific inquiry that is above reproach. We can't simply rely on the statement "God did it". Trusting that God created the world is what we are called to by faith, I know; and I will be the first to tell you that the Biblical account is true. However, if I am going to argue the creation account in the halls of science, then I need scientific arguments. If God has chosen to hide this evidence, then so be it. But I don't believe He has. I believe he has called me to and you to do our part and through us show the world His glory. "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." ...

Some things must be assumed

I have spent a lot of time considering the various issues concerning God's "tool marks" on the universe. Essentially, if you are entirely constrained within the system as well as being a part of the system, there are really no objective means by which the system can be analyzed for evidence of an external creator. Essentially, any behavior I attribute to a creator, can just as easily be attributed to the fundamental aspects of the system. Without a view from outside the system, there is no way to know.

Thankfully for us, we have a creator God who has chosen to communicate with mankind through His word, the Bible. In as much as we can know and understand an infinite God with finite minds, God has revealed Himself to us through His word. Now, this answers the question for the theologian who finds truth through supernatural revelation. For the scientist, who requires knowledge derived from observable criteria, this is not very helpful.

For the scientist to make some headway in the issue, we have to make an assumption. Without it, we are left to flail in circles within the constraints of a closed, inescapable system. So, here is what I propose as the fundamental assumption for our discourse:

All actors are either intelligent or non-intelligent.

To get to this, I need to lay some groundwork. (Mostly because I suspect, my terminology is not correct.) All things which happen in the universe are referred to as phenomena. A single thing is a phenomenon. The vast majority (99.999%) of things that happen have causes. (Newton's First Law of Motion covers these. Quantum Mechanics handles the other 0.001%.) Each cause represents an "Actor". If this were an English Grammar class, we would say, the "Actor" is the Subject to the "Cause" Verb acting on the Object "Phenomenon". For example, The Earth's Gravity (Actor) pulls (causing verb) on the Moon, making it change direction and stay in orbit around the Earth. Simply stated, the Actor is the thing that causes the phenomenon.

So, what is the difference between an "intelligent" and "non-intelligent" actor? An IQ over 110? A vocabulary of 50,000 words? No, the difference is purpose. The Earth's gravity acts on the Moon because that is how gravity works. Gravity is a basic property of matter and it behaves according to definable rules. Even Quantum Mechanic events which may act without "Actors" still operates according to definable probabilities. A "non-intelligent" actor always acts according to rules, regardless of the outcome. An "intelligent" actor intends an outcome when it undertakes an action. That is not to say, the Actor always achieves the intended outcome, but rather that some result was intended. A pitcher desiring to strike out the batter on a 3-2 count chooses a curve ball following two fast-balls, in hopes the batter is expecting the fast ball. The baseball follows a curved path on its way from the pitchers mound to the catcher's mitt because of the physics of spin on the ball, but the spin is on the ball, because the pitcher intended the ball to curve. Whether or not the pitcher succeeds depends as much on the batter's ability as on the pitcher's. But an intelligent actor need not be human, even a worker bee can act with intelligence. The bee leaves the hive with the intent of finding pollen and returning with the pollen to the hive. It is the intentionality of the act that makes it "intelligent".

As we proceed to examine the universe for God's "tool marks", we will be exploring along this line. What is the evidence left on something that is the result of intentional action, versus something that is the phenomenon of non-intelligent action?