An unapologetic ID-er, Michael Behe has written a book called, The Edge of Evolution: The search for the limits of Darwinism. Dr. Behe is a professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, and his current research, ostensibly out of which came the book, involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures. Unfortunately, his work as a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture apparently disqualifies his opinions and findings in the eyes of academia and the media.In the book, Behe challenges the randomness of mutations that is fundamental to Darwinism with his extensive molecular research. On his Amazon profile he says:
Darwin’s theory is an amalgam of several concepts: 1) random mutation, 2) natural selection, and 3) common descent. Common descent and natural selection are very well-supported. Random mutation isn’t. Random mutation is severely constrained. So the process which produced the elegant structures of life could not have been random.Later, in response to the question, "What evidence speaks most clearly to the role of intelligent design in biology?" he responds:
The elegance of the foundation of life — the cell. Charles Darwin and his contemporaries supposed the cell was a “simple globule of protoplasm,” a microscopic piece of Jell-O. They were wrong. Modern science reveals the cell is a sophisticated, automated, nano-scale factory.Now, I clearly do not appreciate the pressure students face from academia with respect to the acceptance of evolution as explained by Darwinism, nor can I effectively refute the current-held beliefs or opinions with scientific or biological evidence. And, there are many Christians who have decided that the randomness of evolution and faith in a loving God who cares enough for his creation to send his Son to die, are not mutually exclusive. I just don't count myself amongst them; and Behe and others like him are why.
First of all, I don't think you can be intellectually honest and also insist that random mutation is a proven fact. That there are many scientists who disagree leaves me to assume that the debate is still on-going.
Secondly, it seems like we are continually increasing our knowledge of what actually occurs on the molecular level, and what we learn often serves to make Darwin's randomness more and more impossible.
Finally, I can't bring myself to dismiss the wonder, glory, and elegance of creation and all its intricate designs, and opt instead for random molecular processes. It just doesn't point to the God revealed in Scripture.
As old-fashioned and conservative as it makes me sound (and even feel), I whole-heartedly embrace creationism as the act of a creative, mysterious and complex deity. This, of course, makes Jesus Christ all the more incredible, since Hebrews names him as the creator; and the creator then died in the place of his creation (not some random mutation). That, my children, is consistent with the creative, mysterious and complex God revealed in the Scriptures. And that is GRACE. He gets the glory.
Responses?
3 comments:
Very interesting. Something bugs me even more than the actual science of the debate, and that is the passion with which some people argue what can only be described (at best) as a "working theory." Hundreds of years ago, everyone KNEW the earth was flat, and Galileo faced excommunication for his theory that suggested otherwise. It seems to me that something about science makes us sure we understand what is going on, perhaps too much so. I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution, etc. It just seems to me that science has never (at least, to the best of my knowledge. feel free to correct me) had less than half of the "fact," and then created a hypothesis, and then it turned out to be right on. In fact, there are many more cases where the opposite is true. What I would like from scientists, as well as religious debaters, is the admission that what is at stake is a debate between working theories supported with largely incomplete data. To me, that takes the edge a little out of some of the attacks that I hear flung about in the media and elsewhere today.
Yes, it is a "working theory", but since most secularists/atheists/agnostics wont even dignify intelligent design as a theory... evolution is the only major horse left in the race. So there is really no need to debate anything in their mind.
I see the whole situation in the same light as global warming. politics and grant money run the show and dissenting voices are marginalized and ostracized. However, I think that the ramifications of being a scientist who questions evolution are much worse that questioning global warming at this time.
What you say makes sense, Josh, about the rejection of ID as a viable theory, and therefore no other theories even exist for them.
What bothers me more than anything is the "second tier" of academia - such as professors and professorettes at Wheaton or Taylor, for instance, who are not in science, scientific pursuits, or directly involved in the field, yet have chosen to believe in and teach Darwinism and all its ramifications. If what you are saying, Josh, is correct - that political and economic pressures dictate the beliefs of many of these professors - then that means a double failure on the part of these "Christian" professors, since by their very presence on a Christian college faculty they claim to be representing "Truth", not just "truth."
And I think you're right, Matt, that science, by its very definition, is not about absolutes, but working theories that can, and probably will, be modified in some form or fashion in the future as more comes to light.
Post a Comment