The Relevance of Philosophy

Over the course of our discussion on evolution and creation, the notion of intelligent design came up, which sounds like a reasonable way to work out all of these differences. Although I don’t think it will be a problem, let me clarify what I mean by intelligent design. Intelligent design is to say that there are things in the universe which exhibit a kind of complexity which is impossible, or at least infeasibly likely, to have come about by any random combination of elements, but appear as though a rational agent had designed it. AnswerinGenesis calls this information; information is inherently rational, and so cannot arise without a rational agent, but it can be lost and it can be reshuffled. This means that horizontal evolution of attributes is possible (and may even be a necessary explanation), but vertical evolution of complexity is not possible.


Once we accept the likelihood that the universe has intelligent design, then the argument has suddenly opened itself up to a lot of philosophical considerations, and it is from here that I would like to proceed. My experience is that a lot of people either cringe or dismiss philosophy as a lot of nonsense which isn’t relevant anyway. That it contains errors and inconsistencies I do not deny, but I challenge the notion that it does not mean anything. Francis Schaeffer’s “Escape from Reason” explains how post-modernism got to be where it is today, and I am going to summarize what he has to say. I strongly recommend reading it, regardless of any interest you may have in philosophy--or read “The God Who Is There”, which seems to cover the same things quickly and then moves further into application.


Western philosophy has been primarily built upon three things: unity, rationalism, and rationality. Note that rationalistic is to rationalism as rational is to rationality, but all four words are not related to the same idea. There is a dividing line, much like Plato’s, between the world of becoming, the particulars, and the world of being, the universals. Schaeffer calls the two realms nature and grace, respectively, and identifies God, heaven, the unseen, and the souls of men as part of grace, and earth, the seen, and men on earth as part of nature. Unity is the desire of philosophers to find a unified system of thought that could encompass both nature and grace. Rationalism is the method of doing so, in which “man begins absolutely and totally from himself, gathers the information concerning the particulars, and formulates the universals.” Rationality is the set of rules by which we apply reason, which is basically logic. It is grounded in the principle of antithesis, that either a statement is true or it is false. For those not familiar with logic, saying something is “partially true” is a semantic convenience. If a statement requires A AND B to be true, and only one of A and B are false, then the statement is necessarily false, but this is less informative than saying it is “partially true.”


The real problem with philosophy is rationalism. It is not that there is anything wrong with deriving understanding from other understanding, but the humanism of rationalism allows that man can discover God by reason alone, starting with himself as the foundation. This will not work, and Schaeffer explains why, but for now let’s assume it will not work. The history of philosophy has been many an attempt to find unity through rationalism, and each succeeding philosopher has thrown down his predecessors’ models with his own, only to have his thrown down later. Existentialism was the breaking point of this trend, in which man (rightly) gave up hope of ever finding unity in this way. Unfortunately, instead of throwing out rationalism, he has thrown out rationality when talking about grace. Without rationality, we can say whatever we want about grace, and there is nothing wrong with it being riddled with self-contradictions. This is how we end up with the silly notion of relativism, saying that one thing is “true for you” and its contrast is “true for me.” Truth has been denied its power of antithesis.


Therefore, I maintain that even though popular thought would have us treat philosophy as non-rational, there is no need to do so, and in fact doing so only lands us in trouble. As such, conclusions about the realm of grace actually mean something. I feel that this notion of intelligent design will be a good way to bridge the chasm in rationalism between man and God. We haven’t fully reasoned that the world is designed by an intelligent being, and I suspect we cannot and believe we do not need to do so. We have only some sort of innate intuition; we must presuppose that there is some intelligence in the realm of grace, and from this starting point I intend to reason further.

More On the Evidences of Origins

I am glad that Nam mentioned the website http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp. It contains some of the arguments which I made reference to, many more which I have heard in the past, and some that I had never heard before. After reading through that page and looking at some others on the site, I would say that this is a much more reliable and better reasoned source of information than the one I linked to previously.


I have been told about the calculation of the age of the earth using the Biblical genealogies and other Biblical data by James Ussher. In fact, AnswerinGenesis says that this was a commonly held position before Ussher, but Ussher offered the most thorough research behind it; they also say that well-respected figures in the scientific community long after Ussher, like Kepler and Newton, also agreed to this dating. I have not tried to verify that this dating is consistent with Scripture; it certainly seems to be, and I have heard it enough from other respected Christians. Yes, I am of the opinion that this is an appropriate interpretation of the Bible which is at the very least an accurate estimate of the age of the world.


I had not thought of that comparison between the “evidence” of the sun and the “evidence” of radiometric dating, but I am glad you brought that to my attention. It’s sort of a moot point now, since I accept that the sun idea is probably invalid, so it would not be so consistent to say that radiometric dating is also invalid. I would like to point out that AnswerinGenesis also offers the suggestion that radiometric decay may be accelerating at rate which is only now perceptible. Also, both AnswerinGenesis and CreationScience both reiterate that the dating depends on a relatively stable system, but the flood of Noah may offer a sufficient traumatic event to disrupt the stability of the process. This is something of cyclical reasoning, as we are using the Bible to justify the Bible. That’s not inherently incorrect, it just doesn’t prove anything. What it does prove, however, is that it is not inherently inconsistent.


As to the idea of the world being created yesterday, I would like to point out an important flaw in the reasoning Nam made, which is perfectly understandable because it depends on an overlooked distinction. In the model suggested, all of matter, from inanimate rocks and water and air even to biological plants and bodies are created in a state that, observed today, would be indicative of age. What I did not suggest is that a rational soul is being created with an appearance of age (and by soul I only mean something like the Platonic/Aristotelean definiton of the emotion, reason, and volition). Even this point must be further refined, as we assume that Adam and Eve had maturity in knowledge and practical wisdom, at the very least more than an infant would. However, I would say that experientially, they were fully aware of having been “born yesterday,” so to speak. It does not entirely exclude the possibility of recreated memories, but the jump from one to the next is not direct, and doing so requires philosophical considerations which lend themselves to another discussion entirely.


Creationism definitely explains the existence of Whit.


Sadly, I didn’t even arrive at any of the things I really wanted to talk about. I guess I’ll have to postpone them again; this is enough for now. I intend to move away from the topic of creation, but I will be picking up on a point which arose during this discussion.

Reconsideration of Earlier Responses to Evolutionism

Here are some other common defenses I’ve heard for creationism from a scientific standpoint.

To generalize the application of radiometric dating, take a natural object which is continuously undergoing a constant and predictable natural process of change, a state which is measurable in its present form and which has a well-defined initial state, and by extrapolation it is easy to show how long it would take this natural process to transform an initial state into its current state, therefore we can predict with relative certainty how long ago the initial state occurred. Radiometric dating measures the amount of time between a fossil’s death and its present discovery by the decay of certain isotopes found in the fossil.

What I have heard, however, is that when this same method of extrapolation is applied to other natural processes, the results are not so consistent anymore. For example, I was told that when scientists were first trying to land a person on the moon, they weren’t sure what to expect. The moon’s thin atmosphere allows a lot of space dust to enter into its gravity and settle on the surface without burning up on entry; if the moon is billions of years old like the earth supposedly is (you’ll have to excuse me if I’m using the wrong time frames), then the scientists theorized that the layer of dust on the moon should be very deep. Yet we see that it was only a very thin layer.

More convincingly, consider the sun. Even secular science makes very clear that the balance of the earth with the sun is precariously delicate; if earth’s orbit were just a little different the planet would be uninhabitably hot or cold. Now, the sun has been undergoing fusion and science theorizes that it will eventually burn out. This is extrapolating forward, but what about backwards? Consider that for life to evolve over the past several billion years, the sun would have to maintain its delicate balance all that time to be conducive to life. Yet backwards extrapolation says that the sun should have been too big and bright to support life.

CreationScience also has a theory saying that radioactive decay either isn’t constant or isn’t exponential in its behavior, which of course would explain consistently incorrect values in radiometric dating. Their observation is that repeated laboratory tests of radioactive decay consistently have a margin of error from previous experiments on the side of decay being faster than anticipated, and rarely if ever is decay reported to be slower than it was the last time it was observed. The implication is that, if there is a noticeable change in the decay function over a couple hundred years, imagine how much more pronounced this variation would be over several thousand years.

Another argument that I’ve heard to defend creationism is a simple yet no less important one. Suppose, on the off chance that the universe and everything in it was created some relatively recent time ago by a personal God. Certainly He would be omnipotent, at least insofar as we are concerned, because He would have authority over that which He made, in a similar way that a tinkerer would understand a device that he has built entirely by himself. Since God is omnipotent, there is nothing at all restricting Him from creating a universe which is does not already show “signs” of age. It is in keeping with His character, as Adam and Eve were created as man and woman, not infants, and there would be no vegetation for food if all the trees were still seeds in the ground. It is entirely possible that things like rocks look older than they are because they looked old when they were first created. I’ve heard of this being take to the other extreme, saying that dinosaur fossils were buried in the earth by God at creation “to test our faith.” That lends itself to another discussion entirely, but I will say that I strongly disagree with this view.

I happened upon a web article at NewScientist which talks about 13 things in science that still don’t make sense. Item number 2 has strong connections with the origins of the universe.

I have one consideration which occurred to me as I was being taught evolution. It is quite possible that a thorough investigation would show that it is entirely possible that my point does not necessarily produce a contradiction in evolutionary science, but it’s something to think about. One of the things you learn about in biology is symbiosis and parasitism and one other species relationship whose name I cannot remember. These relationships usually involve two species of very different “complexity” level. That is to say, one should have evolved long before the other did. Yet that is not possible if each depends on the other for its existence. A valid argument would be to say that these creatures evolved after their counterparts in complexity did, so that they evolve together. This would require verification that I can’t provide. It is something to look at in the fossil record, whether or not dependent creatures are indicated as having evolved out of order. For that matter, what about an entire ecosystem, where the relationship is not so direct? The food chain, even? There are so many interrelated dependencies that had to all evolve in exactly the right sequence for it all to fit together the way it does today.

For anyone reading this, I would like to pose one question to you with which to critically examine yourself. If you are wondering whether the universe was created or if it evolved, whether it happened as a statistical chance or if it was divinely guided, examine why you are asking this question. Is it actually in pursuance of truth that you investigate this matter? Perhaps you have made up your mind about God already, and you are simply trying to find some way to rationalize your opinion. Perhaps it is an idle question, and you are not prepared to accept the consequences from one of these positions being true. If what you really want to know is more about God, does He exist or not, and who is He if he does, then I would invite you not to spend too much time deliberating over scientific findings. While they can and must be supportive of the truth, it is not sufficient to convince on such an infinite matter. Assuming evolution is no longer a pressing topic, I will elaborate on this bold statement next time.

Answering Questions about Evolutionism

Well, it's a good start that you agree with everything that I said. However, you are correct that I did not say anything directly contradictory to what you had said. When I started, I expected to say more, and I also meant to suggest that the information on that site seems reasonable, and hopefully you will notice that the sum of everything said there conflicts with your own conclusions on at least some level. Furthermore, what I intended to show was that the methods described are not sufficient, nor perhaps even adequate, to lead to your conclusions.

I am glad that you cleared that up about carbon dating, I had forgotten that distinction. As to the story about the cat, I understand exactly that radiometric dating is imprecise; in fact I tried to say that in my story, however I guess I wasn’t clear. I don’t know the exact numbers, but let’s suppose that radiometric dating is accurate to within 100 thousand years. Since the cat was buried extremely recently, one would expect radiometric dating to place it within at least the last 200 thousand years. However, the results were not that way; say it came to a million or so years. This was the kind of error demonstrated by the example of the cat.

I would also like to respond to some of Nam’s Answers to creationscience.com

QUESTION
Where has macroevolution ever been observed?

ANSWER
[Humans don't live long enough to observe such things.]


Exactly. If you want to tout empiricism as the exclusive standard for measuring truth (not saying that you are, but some might), you are going to have to accept the fact that you cannot empirically prove evolution. Or creation, for that matter. It should still be possible to discern beyond a reasonable doubt, as we do with the study of history, but the way we approach these disciplines are not exactly the same.



QUESTION

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed…

ANSWER

Don't disregard the existence of vestigial structures…

Vestigial structures may not be as “vestigial” as they first appear. It was long believed that the human appendix was a useless organ (hence the name), and was perhaps even a vestigial organ, but last I heard recent studies suspect it may assist with the immune system. Even if we accept that these members are vestigial, it still does not fully answer their question. If a leg is to evolve into a wing, evolution says that this must happen very gradually over many generations. For each of these generations to exist, the previous generation must also be able to be a viable creature and survive to reproduce consistently. Every intermediate step was a viable creature, and so it seems that this relatively smooth continuum should continue to exist along with the end points of legs and wings. At best, we observe some fluctuation around the end points.

You could also argue that the intermediate steps are viable creatures, but the endpoints are more viable than the intermediates, better able to survive, and so the intermediates died out for their inability to compete.

QUESTION

Do you realize how complex living things are? …

ANSWER

[I must accuse the questioner of going off topic here...

If our intention is to focus entirely on the science of evolution or creation, then I would have to agree that this is off topic. It is very much a philosophical question to pose. Nevertheless, I said before that we can’t verify macro-evolution strictly empirically. Intelligent design is fundamentally a philosophical question, however studying biology and the origins of life are probably the best places to notice evidence for or against intelligent design.

You will hear many Christians use intelligent design as an argument in support of creation. It is an important issue that must be dealt with at some point. There are many Christians who acknowledge the existence of God and His role in intelligent design, yet still maintain that the universe evolved. This has other serious philosophical and theological ramifications that also must be dealt with.


QUESTION

3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there?...

ANSWER

[ There are many factors that go into making a fossil and having it survive preserved well enough for us to find today...



This sounds like a reasonable point. I still maintain that, even if the fossil record is broken due to complications in the fossilization process, it still seems that the creatures present today should also exhibit this same continuum in a much smoother way. A theory which I’ve often heard to explain the separation of fossils, which is on creationscience--although I don’t know how convincing it really is--is to say that they settle over time, sorting themselves by relative size. Looking again, I see they have a theory of liquefaction which seems more adequate than the basic understanding I had before.

What I would like to do at this point is raise my own questions or observations for you to consider, rather than always responding to what you have to say. However, I think this is enough for now.

Some Responses to Evolutionary Thought

Nam brought up the topic of evolution for discussion on his site. I decided it would be an appropriate thing to have here.

I agree completely that micro-evolution is an accepted phenomenon, and that is not worth discussing. I'm glad we can begin with this distinction in mind. I have actually heard a fair amount of information regarding support for creationism vs. support for evolution. I would recommend reading through the chapters found at this website: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ I wouldn't call it a final answer, but it's a good start.

As a general rule, I would not recommend using televangelists as a standard of measure for Christian thought on science, or even a standard for Christian doctrine.

I’ve been told a few times that carbon-dating has been applied to objects which we can date by its historical context. The numbers are usually off significantly, but on a granularity that’s still reasonable for the time scale being proposed. I have this story to add to that, but I must first qualify it. I do not remember who told it to me, but it was a peer of mine, not a scientific authority (of course, he was telling me as having heard from some other source, and supposedly the original source of information was someone reputable). I’ve only heard it once, so it’s not well substantiated. The details of the story have escaped me, so all I can relate is the basic idea. In short, take this with a grain of salt. I heard that someone carbon-dated the remains of a house cat which was caught in the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The actual time of the death of the cat would obviously be well-known, but the results of the dating were inconsistent--on a scale that is unacceptable for the present applications of carbon-dating. The reason suggested is that something about the way in which it was buried changed the characteristics of the corpse.

Radiometric dating rests upon two assumptions, really. The first is that the process of radioactive decay occurs at a rate which is a consistent function--exponential—and has always been this way. This is what Nathan Walker challenged. It is unreasonable to assume that carbon, or any other natural process, would just suddenly "be different" permanently. However, there may be external conditions which affect radioactive decay which are not eternally consistent. The second assumption is the make-up of the fossil being dated when it was first fossilized. Perhaps the make-up of the creature was different than expected, or perhaps something traumatic happened to alter its make-up, as in the case of the buried cat. These are hypotheticals which may be unlikely and only serve to cast doubt on a method regarded as absolutely reliable. It disproves nothing.

There are some who would say that it doesn’t much matter to the Christian faith whether the world was created or evolved; many others make cases for macro-evolution as part of God’s direction. I noticed this verse in the Bible once: "But a witless man can no more become wise than a wild donkey’s colt can be born a man." (Job 11:12) I know that evolutionists would never suggest such a radical jump in a single generation, but it seems to treat the notion that a creature can bear anything other than its own kind as ridiculous. My observation is extremely incidental to the point of the passage, but you can still glean a general attitude toward the matter. This, of course, is in addition to the direct commands by God in Genesis 1 for plants to multiply "according to their kinds" and a repeated insistence on the creation of all other living creatures according to their kinds.

Furthermore, I was made aware of another important point. I’m a fan of the ApologetiX, a sort of Christian version of Weird Al Yankovich. In one of their songs "The Real Sin Savior" (after Eminem’s "The Real Slim Shady"), some lines go: "And if we're monkeys you might as well forget original sin!" Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden cannot be thought of as a single, historical event within the context of evolutionary origins. At best, it is a symbolic metaphor describing human nature as it inherently is. One’s view of original sin has radical consequences on how one interprets a lot of other doctrine as well. It does matter what you think.