Origin of Variation: Concluding Thoughts

• There is ample evidence for genetic
  variation.
  

• First, I offer some examples: The bananas we see in the grocery store are one example of genetic variation, for wild bananas are neither as large nor as tidy. Another example is the variety of household dogs and cats . We are surrounded by genetic variation. There is no point in arguing against it, for such arguments are not only futile, they are foolish.
  
• The extent to which this variation occurs is less clear. So-called microevolution is apparent, as stated above. So-called macroevolution is another matter. We have yet to observe the process of macroevolution and all conclusions regarding it are inference.


• Questions of origin are not primarily scientific.


• Observational science is not possible, given the unique nature of the events. Speculative science is possible, but it must be submitted to the scientific method for verification. On the other hand, theology-philosophy can speak directly to the issue; therefore, theology-philosophy has a prominent, and I would say primary, seat at the table when discussing issues of origin.


• These assumptions make the difference in how the data are interpreted. Naturalistic science assumes the universe is a closed system of natural processes and substances, whereas theistic science¹ assumes the universe is an open system in which the natural processes and substances have been created and are acted upon by an immaterial, divine, uncreated being.
  


• Non-young earthers rightly question why it looks as if adaptation took millions of years.


• Honestly, I do not believe there is a young earth answer that will satisfy naturalistic science. Theistic science and naturalistic science disagree on basic assumptions--specifically, the participation or non-participation of a divine intelligence. Further, convincing naturalistic science of a theistic interpretation of the data should not be focus of theologians. Rather, we ought to focus on developing an interpretation that is reasonable and coherent given theistic assumptions.
  


• One reasonable and coherent claim is that God made both the materials of creation and its processes. He created kinds within type and equipped them with the genetic information and capacity for adaptation to various environmental pressures. As time went along, these kinds within types, through the inherent genetic information and capacities, adapted to various environments, resulting in the great variety we see today. ²


• Questions of origin, by their very nature, are ultimate questions, best answered by theology-philosophy.
  


• Let me clarify what I am disagreeing with here with regard to humanity. I am not saying that the process of adaptation by genetic variation has not changed humanity; I am saying that at the beginning of those changes stood two human persons, created by God. They may well have looked quite a bit differently than we do today, but I do not believe the Bible allows any other claim: God created human persons.


• I clearly and fully admit that this is a theological claim, not a scientific one; I also believe that when we are talking about questions of origin, we are going past the capacity of observational science and into a realm where theology-philosophy has more to say and where what it says carries more weight. We are not talking about the observed data, but inferences made from that data on the basis of assumptions.


• Inferences concerning the origin of variation tell us who we are and how we relate to the world and to God. If we are the product of naturalistic processes, then we are mere animals and ethics, morals, and spirituality are adaptations for survival that have no transcendent quality. But, if we are the product of theistic action and are (as the Bible declares in Genesis 1) created in God's image, then humans have transcendent qualities and transcendent worth, for we are related to something greater than anything in the created universe.




• Conclusions
  
  


• Looking at the question of the origin of variation from a theological perspective--that God exists, that he acts, and that he has the power to create by fiat--produces inferences that are coherent and adequately explain the data.
  
• I realize that those who do not hold to theistic science and who look upon the question of origin as naturalistic will disagree with theistic inferences, and probably vehemently. I understand. Do know that we are not disagreeing about the data, but rather about the interpretation of data and the assumptions behind those interpretations. If one holds naturalistic assumptions, then I would agree that an evolutionary explanation of the origin of variation makes sense. But if one holds theistic assumptions--that there is a divine intelligence who has the power and authority to create by fiat--then divine creation logically stands as the origin of variation.
• I claim that these theistic assumptions are not merely my opinion; I claim they are true.
• Current Position: Adaptation by genetic variation originated with divine creation of kinds-within-type that are imbued by God with the genetic information and capacities for this ongoing process.
  

NEXT: A Short History of witwaw*

*witwaw = "Who In The World are We?"

---

1. By "theistic science" I do not intend to say that those who hold to naturalistic science cannot or do not believe in a god or that those who hold theistic science believe in a specific god. I am speaking here of the type of science, not the type of scientist.
2. "kind" in the Hebrew Old Testament: Gen 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; 6:20; 7:14; Lev 11:14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 29; Deut 14:13, 14, 15, 18; Ezek 47:10
   
   Conclusion: "kind" (Heb meen), seems to refer to categories of plants and animals that are able to produce fertile offspring. My best guess is that "kind" in the OT is equivalent to "species." This does not mean new species could not develop through adaptation; on this point I am unsure.

Refining My Understanding: Origin of Variation, Origin of Life, and Origin of Matter

Through the helpful interactions on Why I do not believe in macro-evolution, I have learned that I have conflated three notions of origins. With this post, I begin to unscramble the egg.

Origin of Variation

• Looks at the genetic variation among living things, specifically the ultimate and continuing source of this variation
• Science-under-the-canopy (SciUTC*) offers a purely material origin: biological evolution.
• Christian theology offers a divine and material origin: God created the initial types and kinds of living things (Gen 1) and the continuing processes of adaptation by genetic variation. I hold that these continuing processes occur within type and kind, rather than between type and kind.

Origin of Life

• Looks at the beginnings of what we know as life
• One SciUTC explanation is abiogenesis (“spontaneous generation”), but Pasteur (Benton 15) refuted this.
• Another is the Oparin-Haldric model, which theorizes that life arose from chemical reactions in the earth’s early atmosphere (Benton 24).
• A third set of theories offer that “RNA was the first genetic molecule” (Benton 26).
• Christian theology** claims that God created life (Gen 1) by fiat, speaking it into existence.

Origin of Matter

• Looks at the beginnings of matter, space, and time
• SciUTC offers the various versions of the Big Bang theory and the Steady State model as possible explanations.
• Christian theology offers that God created matter, space, and time by fiat; the specific mechanisms are less clear.

Next week: Origin of Variation: basic concepts and theological significance.

Resources
Evolution: A Very Short Introduction, by Brian and Deborah Charlesworth (Oxford University Press, USA (2003), Edition: 1, Paperback, 168 pages)
Cosmology: A Very Short Introduction, by Peter Coles (Oxford University Press, USA (December 6, 2001), 152 pages)
The History of Life: A Very Short Introduction, by Michael J. Benton (Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (December 15, 2008), 144 pages)
Genesis 1-2

NOTE:
If I have misunderstood or misrepresented an SciUTC position, please kindly leave a correction in the comments.

*SciUTC: looks at the substance and processes of the material universe without reference to immaterial (AKA “divine”) inputs.
**The Christian Theology perspectives in this post are my own. Dialogue welcome.


---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

What do questions of origin have to do with who we are in the world?

If God created humanity as responsible adults to care for an adult earth, filled with adult plants and animals, who are self-perpetuating through sexual or asexual reproduction, what should be our approach to the data being interpreted by science*?

In last Monday's post, I dipped my toe a bit deeper in the evolution-creation pond that I had planned. With this post, I dip a bit further, this time leaning toward the theological end.

---

I do not dispute the data; rather, I believe both scientific and theological knowledge must be applied to the data. Our knowledge of the universe since the Scientific Revolution has increased dramatically, as mentioned by Andrew B in his comment: "our knowledge of the universe has been exploding through application of the scientific method, logic, reasoning and mathematics." God has placed us in this world and has given us minds that are naturally curious and that seek to reason things out. These great gifts must not be cast aside, but must be leveraged.

Science has told and will continue to tell us much about our world and ourselves, but scientific knowledge cannot tell us the entire story, for the origin of humanity, the earth, and all living things is beyond our experimental reach. We can also study what is happening now. We can study the circumstantial evidence left by what has happened in the past. These provide a wealth of information, but an eyewitness report is lacking in the scientific data.

If the Bible is inspired by God, then believe Genesis 1-2 provides such an eyewitness account. If it is an eyewitness account, then theological knowledge must be applied to questions of origin. This is not to say that scientific knowledge is discounted; rather, theology must have a place at the table, for these questions have distinct theological/philosophical components.

As it stands, at least from my tiny corner of the world, it seems the scientists and the theologians are having a difficult time at the round table. To quote Francis S. Collins,

The shrill voices at the extremes of this debate have had the microphone for too long. Although they will no doubt continue to rail against each other, the rest of us should find ways to bring together scientists who are open to spiritual truths, theologians who are ready to embrace scientific findings about the universe, and pastors who know the real concerns and needs of their flocks. Together, in a loving and worshipful attitude, we could formulate a new and wondrous natural theology ("A New Theology of Celebration," Search Magazine).

There is much heat in this discussion--too much heat (a small part of which I have cast about). But to quote Collins again, "If we make a serious and prayerful attempt to do this together, perhaps in a few years this new “celebration theology” could eliminate the conflict between science and faith."

Where do we go from here?

As God's viceroys on earth, an interpretation of the available data must conform to our care for and rule over creation. As God's creation, our interpretation of the data must keep in mind his divinity and power; it must serve to increase our understanding not only of the universe, but of its Creator.

Therefore,

I issue a call is to scientists who are Christian: have the courage to take off the canopy when it is academically feasible, even if it is only feasible in your own mind. Look at the available data and ask questions such as these,

• Since God is, how should I interpret these data?
• If God created by declaration, how would I interpret these data?

Interpretation is a greater issue than the data. If God created by declaration, then God could have created an adult universe that was sculpted with the characteristics of a universe that had developed over time. If God created by declaration, then he could have created human, animal, and plant kinds that the form the bases of all the species in existence today.

I issue a call is to theologians and pastors: have the courage to move from a discussion of the data to a discussion of its meaning, asking questions such as,

• If the earth appears millions of years old and yet was created by God a much shorter time ago, then what is the theological significance of his creating an adult universe?
• What is the theological significance of the built-in process of adaption and change that we see in the natural world?
  

Rather than wasting time refuting data, invest time interpreting the data and discussing theological significance.

We are followers of Jesus, but this designation is not to be relegated to Sunday morning rituals or private moments of prayer and Bible reading. We are his followers in this place and at this time. Let us be wholly engaged with God, each other, and his creation.

*NOTE: I am specifically refuting science that does not reference God, meaning science that interprets the available data according to materialistic assumptions.

Next week: Refining My Understanding: Origin of Variation, Origin of Life, and Origin of Matter

===
Further Reading
Reliability, Inerrancy, and the Like
Inspiration of the Bible (wikipedia)
Genesis 1-2

---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Why I do not believe in macro-evolution

• Macro-evolution does not adequately account for genetic differences among species. Different species have very different DNA coding and the assumption that a fish became a lizard does not seem tenable. The plethora of DNA evolution theories testifies to the validity of the issue. Such complex and specific changes in DNA seem more magical than anything theology has come up with.
• Atheistic macro-evolution does not adequately account for the impossibility of spontaneous generation . How did the primordial ooze become life? Scientists have run laboratory experiments in which they "create" amino acids from some ooze, but these very experiments provide evidence for intelligent design, for the scientists are the intelligent designers of the newly created amino acids.
• If the Scripture is an accurate record of God's ways with his people and his creation, then our perceived timeline should not start at zero. Atheistic macro-evolutionists claim that Scripture does not make adequate sense of the data for the data show that the earth is millions of years old. I would offer that if we were able to travel back in time, to the garden and do tests on Adam and Eve, we would find that the tests "proved" them to be in their mid-twenties, despite the fact that they were mere days/hours old. Just as God created adult humans, animals, and plants, he also created an adult earth, stars, and universe. I happen to be a crazy young-earther , but I hold that with very open hands. I hold this position because I believe it makes the best sense of the biblical and scientific data. If one is a theist and believes God has the capacity to create, then frankly it makes no sense for that same person to discount God's capacity to create.
• Theologically, the presence of human death is directly connected to the entrance of sin. If death only entered after the entrance of sin, then it is impossible for there to have been death before that. Without death and a succession of generations, there is no way for human evolution to have occurred. Therefore, if one is to take Genesis seriously and not merely literally, then, however else micro-evolution fits into the picture, macro-evolution is theologically impossible.
  

In sum, these scientific and theological reasons compel me to reject macro-evolution and support intelligent design, for ID makes the best sense of the scientific and theological data. In addition, I hold that a young earth is both theologically and scientifically possible. I believe it is even likely, but I am unwilling to die on that hill.

What do you say?

===
Next week: What does this have to do with Who in the World Are We?
---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology