Suddenly

   Darwinian evolution rests on the principle that life has unfolded by way of a slow gradual process.  The driving force for Darwinian evolution is natural selection and beneficial mutations.  Charles Darwin once said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. [1]  Contemporary biochemist, Michael Behe has used this quote of Darwin to promote "irreducible complexity."  Behe's basic argument is that in order for evolution to take place on a macroevolutionary scale all the beneficial , component parts must exist in order for the advanced organism to evolve functionally alive.  However, there is something else implied in Darwin's bold quote, and that is life evolves very slowly.  Is it the case that evolution is always to be viewed as a slow unfolding process?

Unbeknown to Darwin is the biological and fossil evidence today that shows with certainty that evolution is not always to be viewed in a slow gradual process.  In fact, recent evidence has caused some scientists to revise their definition of evolution.  One of the more prominent Paleontologist to revise the slow evolutionary steps of evolution is the late Stephen Jay Gould.  Gould's revised theory was called "punctuated equilibrium."  Punctuated equilibrium basically says that evolutionary jumps can be made suddenly, geologically speaking.  In other words, Life can evolve suddenly by beneficial mutation.  For this reason we see no gradual unfolding evolution.  Gould's view was promoted because we know that life has appeared suddenly in the past, contrary to Darwin's original view.  What examples can be given to show the sudden existence of life?

According to science, modern humans appeared some 200,000 years ago.  Again, according to Darwinian evolution, humans should have branched off of some other form of hominid species some 200,000 years ago.  If this is the case, then modern science should be able to find biochemical evidence to link modern man with his ancestors of the past.  Many scientist have claimed that the genetic similarities between man and chimpanzees is 98% similar.  The conclusion is that genetically speaking, humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but is this the case? 

Anthropologist, Jonathan Marks has noted that daffodils (the flower) and humans share 35% genetic similarity. [2]  Does this mean we are 35% flowers?  Absolutely not!  Just as the similarities between the chimp and man are similar does not absolutely mean they are related in a Darwinian way.  The differences between chimps/hominids and humans are more profound than many realize.  According to Chemist, Fazale Rana and Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, "What does it mean to be 98% chimpanzee?  In terms of evolution, essentially nothing." [3]  The point is, man appears suddenly and can't be linked with past hominids or great apes.  It is also interesting to note that artistic expression and the like exploded on the scene of modern humans some 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.

Probably the biggest challenge to the slow process of Darwinian evolution comes by way of the Cambrian explosion.  The Cambrian explosion is a term given to the explosion of life at the beginning of the the Cambrian period.  The Cambrian period goes back some 530 million years ago according to science.  The life forms that appeared suddenly had no previous species from which they evolved from.  This sudden explosion was a challenge to Darwin and continues to challenge Darwin's theory of evolution.

In conclusion, Darwinian evolution is not the same as the hard sciences (Chemistry, Physics) because the theory cannot be tested in the same way.  For this reason there remains serious challenges to Darwin's view that need to be answered if it is to be accepted as settled fact.  From the recent fossil evidence and biochemical evidence it appears that one document (the Bible) has show itself to match with the evidence.  The evidence points to the fact that life has appeared suddenly and has not unfolded by way of a slow gradual process.

[1]  Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species

[2]  Marks, Jonathan as found in Who was Adam?, p. 220

[3]  Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Who was Adam, p. 222

The quest for a chance beginning

According to recent findings, scientist's have found bacteria that feeds on arsenic for the purpose of photosynthesis. This represents a breakthrough discovery, because if this can occur on earth, why not on Titan, which is a moon of Saturn, or other places in the universe? The conclusion of this recent finding is that life is no longer unique to earth. For those who espouse a naturalistic view of science the implication is, life can evolve by chance processes alone. One of the angles that the naturalist would take is that God is not necessary anymore, for life will find a way.

One of the big illusions of naturalism is its handicapping of possible truth. If supernaturalism is ruled out a priori, then the possibility of truth may be lost if anything is supernaturally caused. In this case with the discovery of bacteria, it must be assumed by naturalistic science that it came to be by a chance creative process. Another problem arises when the naturalist takes the position that life comes into being by a chance process, but how does he know this? What evidence can be given to show this is the most logical view? How does he know this bacteria was not created supernaturally in the past? When naturalism jumps to this conclusion, the the jump is merely a jump of faith.

Further problems exist when the assumption is made that because bacterial life can possibly form outside of earth, Darwinian evolution must be true. Several questions need to be addressed for life to even start and evolve. For example, How did something come from nothing? If you have chance creation of the universe, then how did the living arise from non-living material? How did the first DNA chains arise by chance? These questions have to be addressed first, but naturalistic science assumes not just chance evolution, but that conscious beings can evolve by a random chance processes.

What the naturalist does not want to address is explaining these fundamental questions to chance life beginnings. The reason why these questions are not addressed is because there is no way to show that life arose by chance. Science can never test this, but that doesn't not seem to slow the advocates of a purely naturalistic ideology. If naturalistic science claims that this discovery proves Darwinian evolution, they are swimming in the water of preconceived, philosophical, pseudoscience. If naturalism is crowned the champion of truth based upon this discovery, then the science of the gaps is inserted and real truth has been deleted.

• Article of NASA's findings
  

Fighting with both hands tied

Naturalism is the philosophical belief that the universe is the product of a purely naturalistic accident and that everything should be explained by naturalistic means. Naturalist would discount any Supernatural explanation. If a scientist has a naturalistic view, then all explanations are explained without reference to Supernaturalism. Carl Sagan once stated, "the Cosmos is all that was, is, or ever will be."[1] Nature is all there is on a naturalistic worldview.

What would happen if the Supernatural realm exist? Well, for starters, truth cannot be obtained if one holds a naturalistic viewpoint. Philosopher of science Del Ratzsch said, "If part of reality lies beyond the natural realm, then science cannot get at the truth without abandoning the naturalism it presently follows as a methodological rule of thumb." In other words, truth can never be obtained because naturalism can only answer so much. The truth of the matter is, naturalism is a religion in and of itself, for it makes statements of how we should perceive reality.

In 1912, Charles Darwin discovered a so called missing link between man and apes called "Piltdown man." It was discovered some 40 years later that the cranial bones were stained with a red dye to give the appearance of age, and the jaw bone was actually from an orangutan, with a cranium that was human. Now, this is not to say that science does not contribute greatly to our understanding of the world, but the point is, as Darwin was trying to manipulate the evidence for a preconceived purpose or idea, likewise, naturalism also has a preconceived idea that prevents the faith of naturalism from gathering all the evidence of truth. Journal editor, Alexander Kohn rightly stated, " Scientists, contrary to lay belief, do not work by collecting only hard facts and fitting together information based on them. Scientific investigation is also motivated by pursuit of recognition and fame, by hope and prejudice. Dubious evidence is strengthened by strong hope: anomalies are fitted into a coherent picture with the help of cultural bias."

Again, science has offered much and continues to do so, but a purely naturalist view mixed with a preconceived scientific view can only partially answer the big questions of life. Naturalism is a religious view that is akin to a boxer fighting with both hands tied behind his back. If truth is important, then we should consider the evidence wherever it leads irregardless of the positions we hold so dear.

[1] Sagan, Carl, Cosmos

At the alter of Darwin

Point 5 of the 'new atheists" according to John Haught is: "All living things are the result of Darwinian evolution." While it is true that evolution takes place (evolution in the sense of change or microevolutionary adaptations), the question really is to what extent? On a Darwinian scale all life has evolved from a single celled organism. Multiple problems exist with Darwin's view. First, how did this first organism appear from non-living material? Second, what evidence exists in the fossil record? Third, How do you add new genetic material? Fourth, How does a cold blooded organism (which is more primitive) develop a warm blooded system by way of small gradual changes? Fifth, what about the Cambrian explosion?1 Sixth, what about irreducible complexity?2 Seventh, what do you do with the appearance of design and the rise of consciousness?

Today, however the theory of evolution is being presented as settled fact. Much of what is being presented by the "new atheists" is nothing more than religious philosophy. Evolutionary changes cannot be denied, but are we talking of macroevolutionary changes where all life springs from a single life form (i.e. tree of evolution) or are the changes merely adaptations (microevolution) within the various phyla of organisms?

1 ( a secular article that addresses the Cambrian explosion)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
2 http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp

• Good debate on Darwinism verses Intelligent Design: http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/130

General Young Earth Creationist views

Here is a list of general view from a young earth perspective:

Religion- Theism
Prominent believers - Henry Morris, Ken Ham, John Mark Reynolds
Miracles - Many throughout history.
Evolution - Variations within limit, might be willing to accept microevolutionary views, but certainly not macro.
Age - Universe and earth usually thousands of years old. Upper limit would be 50,000 years, while most would hold a 10,000 or less scenario.
Human evolution - Adam and Eve are the literal first humans. Agreement with old earth perspective here.
Genesis account - Take it as literal as possible. Six, 24-hour days of creation. Creation days are the same as our days.
Science/Theology - Theology trumps science. Some would say that we always need to be wary of science.

• Bowman, Robert, Scripture: Outline studies in Authority, Cannon, and Criticism, p. 45

General Old Earth evolutionary views

Below are the general views of a Progressive Creationist:

Religion - Theism
Prominent believers - Robert Newman, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland
Miracles - many
Evolution - Microevolution, but not macroevolution.
Age - Universe about 14 billion years old and the earth about 4.6 billion years old. Agreement with current scientific understanding of the age question.
Human evolution - Humans are a special creation of God, no Darwinian evolution on this view.
Adam and Eve - Specially created as the first literal humans.
Genesis account - Historical narrative with some symbolic language.
Science/Theology - Both are equally valid as a source as to how we can obtain knowledge.

• Bowman, Robert, Scripture: Outline studies in Authority, Cannon, and Criticism, p. 45

General Theistic evolutionary views

Below is a list of general views as expressed by those who take a Theistic Evolutionary view:

Religion - Deism or Theism.
Prominent believers - C.S. Lewis, Howard Van Till
Miracles - Few, such as: creation, life, and soul.
Evolution - Macroevolution that is guided.
Age - Universe is billions of years old.
Human evolution - Darwinian human evolution, where the soul is a special creation of God.
First humans - Maybe no Adam and Eve.
Genesis account - Gives us spiritual truth, somewhat mythical.
Science/Theology - Science deals with physical reality, while theology deals with spiritual reality.

• Bowman, Robert, Scripture: Outline studies in Authority, Cannon, and Criticism, p. 45
  

General Darwinian evolutionary views

Below is a list of some general characteristics of a typical Darwinian view:

Religious view- Atheism(no God exists) or Pantheism (everything is god).
Prominent believers - Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins.
Miracles - Zero (Miracles are non-existent).
Evolution - Panevolution (All has evolved by purely mechanist/naturalistic means).
Age - Universe is billions of years old (some would say it is eternal and others might say there are multiple universes in existence).
Human Evolution - Certainly by Darwin's mechanistic process (organic humans came from inorganic material).
First Humans - Who knows?, no Adam and Eve.
Genesis account - A myth without merit.
Science/Theology - Science tells us the truth (reality), whereas theology is only belief without the ability to give us truthful knowledge.

* Bowman, Robert, Scripture: Outline studies in Authority, Cannon, and Criticism, p. 45